J  " 

t 


ill 


f 


/        y 


v.---^^s- 


o^co 


Sli- 
ink 
1900 


y.6 


BOOK    2  1  1.IN4     1900   V.8    c.  1 
INGERSOLL    #    WORKS    OF    ROBERT    G 
INGERSOLL 


3  T153  DOObSSbt,  1 


THE  WORKS 

OF  V   : 

Robert  G.  Ingersoll.    ^^ 


^etD  JBvtihtn  Cbitton. 


Happiness  is  the  only  good,  reason  the  only  torch,  justice  the 
only  worship,  humanity  the  only  religion,  and  love  the 
only  priest. 


IN  TWELVE  VOLUMES. 

VOLUME   EIGHT. 
INTERVIEWS. 

C.    P.    FARRELL. 


THE  INGERSOLL  PUBLISHERS,  Inc. 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 


COPYRIGHTED. 

1900, 
C.  P.  FARRELL. 


CONTENTS    OF   VOLUME   VHL 

INTERVIEWS. 

The  Bible  and  a  Future  Life,  Washington  Post, 
Mrs.  Van  Cott,  the  Revivalist,  Buffalo  Express,     . 
European  Trip  and  Greenback  Question,  Washington  Post, 
The  Pre-Millennial  Conference,  Buffalo  Express, 
The  Solid  South  and  Resumption,  Cincinnati  Commercial, 
Sunday  Laws  of  Pittsburg,  Pittsburg  Leader,     . 
Political  and  Religious,  Chicago  Times,        .... 
Politics  and  Gen.  Grant.  Indianapolis  Journal, 
Politics,  Religion  and  Thomas  Paine,  Chicago  Times, 
Reply  TO  Chicago  Critics,  Chicago  Tribune,    . 
The  Republican  Victory,  New  York  Herald, 
Ingersoll  and  Beech er,  New  York  Herald, 

Political,  Washington  Post, 

Religion  in  Politics,  New  York  Evening  Express,      . 
Miracles  and  Immortality,  Pittsburg  Dispatch, 


K 

3 

5 

lO 

II 
13 
15 
33 
38 
II 
38 
40 
42 
49 
52 
c8 


PLEASE  NOTE 


It  has  been  necessary  to  replace  some  of  the  original 
pages  in  this  book  with  photocopy  reproductions 
because  of  damage  or  mistreatment  by  a  previous  user. 

Replacement  of  damaged  materials  is  both  expensive 
and  time-consuming.  Please  handle  this  volume  with 
care  so  that  information  will  not  be  lost  to  future  readers. 

Thank  you  for  helping  to  preserve  the  University's 
research  collections. 


^^ 


^. 


e> 


COPYRIGHTED. 

1900, 
C.  P.  FARRELL. 


CONTENTS    OF   VOLUME   VUL 

INTERVIEWS. 


Thb  Bible  and  a  Future  Life,  Washington  Post, 

Mrs.  Van  Cott,  the  Revivalist,  Buffalo  Express,     . 

European  Trip  and  Greenback  Question,  Washington  Post, 

The  Pre-Millennial  Conference,  Buffalo  Express, 

The  Solid  South  and  Resumption,  Cincinnati  Commercial, 

Sunday  Laws  OF  Pittsburg,  Pittsburg  Leader,     . 

Political  and  Religious,  Chicago  Times 

Politics  and  Gen.  Grant,  Indianapolis  Journal, 
Politics,  Religion  and  Thomas  Paine,  Chicago  Times, 
Reply  to  Chicago  Critics,  Chicago  Tribune,     . 
The  Republican  Victory,  New  York  Herald, 
Ingersoll  and  Beecher,  New  York  Herald, 

Political,  Washington  Post, 

Religion  in  Politics,  New  York  Evening  Express, 
Miracles  and  Immortality,  Pittsburg  Dispatch,      , 
The  Political  Outlook,  Cincinnati  Commercial, 
Mr.  Beecher,  Moses  and  the  Negro,  Brooklyn  Eagle, 
Hades,  Delaware  and  Freethought,  Brooklyn  Eagle,     . 
A  Reply  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lansing,  New  Haven  Sunday  Union, 
Beaconsfield,  Lent  and  Revivals,  Brooklyn  Eagle, 
Answering  the  New  York  Ministers,  Chicago  Times, 
Guiteau  and  His  Crime,  Washington  Sunday  Gazette, 

District  Suffrage,  Washington  Capital, 

Funeral  of  John  G.  Mills  and  Immortality,  Washington  Post, 
Star  Route  and  Politics,  New  York  Herald,  .        .        .        . 

The  Interviewer,  New  York  Morning  Journal 

Politics  and  Prohibition,  Chicago  Times, 

The  Republican  Defeat  in  Ohio,  Dayton  Democrat, 

(iii) 


Vol. 


X 

3 

5 

ID 
II 

'3 
15 

23 

28 
II 
38 
40 
42 

49 
52 
58 
62 
69 
77 
80 
84 

lOQ 
107 
III 
120 
128 
130 


i3;i 

VIII. 


IV 


CONTENTS. 


The  Civil  Rights  Bill,  Washington  National  Republican,    , 

Justice  Harlan  and  the  Civil  Rights  Bill,  Chicago  Inter-Ocean,    . 

Politics  and  Theology,  Denver  Tribune, 

Morality  and  Immortality,  Detroit  News, 

Politics,  Mormonism  and  Mr.  Beecher,  Denver  News, 

Free  Trade  and  Christianity,  Denver  Republican, 

The  Oath  Question,  London  Secular  Review,  .... 

Wendell  Phillips,  Fitz  John  Porter  and  Bismarck,  Chicago  Times 

General  Subjects,  Kansas  City  Times, 

Reply  to  Kansas  City  Clergy,  Kansas  City  Journal, 

Swearing  and  Affirming,  Buffalo  Courier, 

Reply  to  a  Buffalo  Critic,  Buffalo  Times,        .... 

Blasphemy,  Philadelphia  Press, 

Politics  and  British  Columbia,  San  Francisco  Evening  Post, 

Ingersoll  Catechised,  San  Francisco  San  Franciscan, 

Blaine's  Defeat,  Topeka  Commonwealth, 

Blaine's  Defeat,  Louisville  Commercial,  .        .        .        ,        . 

Plagiarism  and  Politics,  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer, 

Religious  Prejudice,  New  York  Mail  and  Express,         , 

Cleveland  and  His  Cabinet,  New  York  Mail  and  Express, 

Religion,  Prohibition  and  Gen,  Grant,  Iowa  State  Register,      . 

Hell  or  Sheol  and  Other  Subjects,  Boston  Evening  Record, 

Interviewing,  Politics  and  Spiritualism,  Cleveland  Plaim  Dealer 

My  Belief,  Philadelphia  Times,      .... 

Some  Live  Topics,  New  York  Truth  Seeker,     . 

The  President  and  Senate,  Chicago  Inter-Ocean, 

Atheism  and  Citizenship,  New  York  Herald, 

The  Labor  Question,  Cincinnati  Enquirer, 

Railroads  and  Politics,  Cincinnati  Times  Star, 

Prohibition,  Boston  Evening  Traveler, 

Henry  George  and  Labor,  New  York  Herald, 

Labor  Question  and  Socialism,  New  York  World, 

Henry  George  and  Socialism,  Chicago  Times, 

Reply  to  the  Rev.  B.  F.  Morse,  New  York  Herald 

Ingersoll  on  McGlynn,  Brooklyn  Citizen, 

Trial  of  the  Chicago  Anarchists,  New  York  Mail  and  Express, 
Vol.  viu. 


I3S 
138 
145 
148 
162 
169 

179 
188 
191 

194 
197 
198 
202 
204 
206 
216 
218 
220 
224 
228 
331 
237 
240 

245 
248 
263 
266 
268 
270 
271 
273 
274 
279 
283 
284 
291 


CONTENTS.  V 

The  Stage  and  the  Pulpit,  New  York  Truth  Seeker,    ....  296 

ROSCOE  CONKLING,  New  York  Herald, 306 

The  Church  and  the  Stage,  New  York  Dramatic  Mirror,      .        .        .  307 

Protection— Free  Trade,  New  York  Press,        .        .        „        .  317 

Labor  and  Tariff  Reform,  New  York  Press, 324 

Cleveland  and  Thurman,  New  York  Press, 334 

The  Republican  Platform  of  1888,  New  York  Press,            .        .        .  347 

James  G.  Blaine  and  Politics,  New  York  Press,          ....  357 

The  Mills  Bill,  New  York  Press, 360 

Society  and  Its  Criminals,  New  York  World, 369 

Woman's  Right  to  Divorce,  New  York  World, 383 

Secularism,  Toronto  Secular  Thought, 390 

Summer  Recreation— Mr.  Gladstone,  Unpublished,     ....  399 

Prohibition,  New  York  World,      ........  402 

Robert  Elsmere,  New  York  World, 412 

Working  Girls,  New  York  World, 422 

Protection  for  American  Actors,  New  York  Star,       ....  430 

Liberals  and  Liberalism,  Toronto  Secular  Thought,           .        .        .  437 

Pope  Leo  XIII.,  New  York  Herald, 442 

The  Sacredness  of  the  Sabbath,  New  York  Journal,         ...  446 

The  West  AND  South,  Indianapolis  Journal, 450 

The  Westminster  Creed  and  Other  Subjects,  Rochester 

Post-Express, 451 

Shakespeare  and  Bacon,  Minneapolis  Tribune, 453 

Growing  Old  Gracefully,  and  Presbyterianism,  Toledo  Blade,    .  457 

Creeds,  New  York  Morning  Advertiser, 461 

The  Tendency  of  Modern  Thought,  The  Chicago  Tribune,      .        .  470 

Woman  Suffrage,  Horse  Racing  and  Money,  Chicago  Inter-Ocean,    .  483 

Missionaries,  Cleveland  Press, 485 

My  Belief  and  Unbelief,  Toledo  Blade, 486 

Must  Reugion  Go  ?  New  York  Evening  Advertiser,      ....  487 

Word  Painting  and  College  Education,  Indianapolis  News,      .        .  489 
Personal  Magnetism  and  the  Sunday  Question,  Cincinnati 

Commercial  Gazette,             491 

Authors,  Kansas  City  Star, 499 

Inebriety,  Unpublished, 502 

Vol.  viii. 


ri  CONTENTS. 

Miracles,  Theosophy  and  Spiritualism,  Unpublished,         .       •       •  507 

Tolstoy  and  Literature,  Buffalo  Evening  Express,           ,        .        .  513 

Woman  in  Politics,  New  York  Advertiser, 517 

Spiritualism,  St.  Louis  Globe-Democrat, 521 

Plays  and  Players,  New  York  Dramatic  Mirror, 525 

Woman,  A  Fragment, 530' 

Strikes,  Expansion  and  Other  Subjects,  New  York,  May  5,  1893,      .  530* 

Sunday  a  Day  of  Pleasure,  New  York  Times, 533 

The  Parliament  of  Religions,  New  York  Herald,         ....  535 

Cleveland's  Hawaiian  Policy,  Chicago  Inter-Ocean,         .        .        .  537 

Orators  and  Oratory,  London  Sketch, 540 

Catholicism  and  Protestantism.— The  Pope.— The  A.  P.  A. 

—Agnosticism  and  the  Church,  New  York  Herald,     ...  542 

Woman  and  Her  Domain,  Grand  Rapids  Democrat,         ....  549 

Professor  Swing,  Chicago  Inter-Ocean, 551 

Senator  Sherman  and  His  Book,  St.  Louis  Globe  Democrat,        .        .  552 

Reply  to  the  Christian  Endeavorers,  New  York  Journal,   .        .  555 

Spiritualism,  New  York  Journal, 557 

A  Little  of  Everything,  Rochester  Herald, 564 

Is  Life  Worth  Living  ? — Christian  Science  and  Politics, 

Chicago  Inter-Ocean, 567 

Vivisection,  New  York  Evening  Telegram, 569 

Divorce,  New  York  Herald, 574 

Music,  Newspapers,  Lynching  and  Arbitration,  Chicago 

Inter-Ocean, 578 

A  Visit  to  Shaw's  Garden,  St,  Louis  Republic, 583 

The  Venezuela  Boundary  Discussion  and  the  Whipping 

Post,  New  York  Journal, 584 

Colonel  Shepard's  Stage  Horses,  New  York  Morning  Advertiser,       .  587 

A  Reply  to  the  Rev.  L.  A.  Banks,  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,        .        .  587 

Cuba— Zola  and  Theosophy,  Louisville  Courier-Journal,        .        .        .  591 

How  to  Become  an  Orator,  New  York  Sun, 594 

John  Russell  Young  and  Expansion,  Philadelphia  Press,      ...  599 

Psychical  Research  and  the  Bible,  New  York  Mind,        ...  601 

This  Century's  Glories,  New  York  Sun, 6o7 

Capital  Punishment  and  the  Whipping  Post,  Chicago  Tribune,     .  615 

Expansion  and  Trusts,  Philadelphia  North  American,            .        .        »  617 
Vol.  viii. 


INTERVIEWS. 


THE   BIBLE   AND   A   FUTURE   LIFE. 

Question.  Colonel,  are  your  views  of  religion  based  upon 
the  Bible  ? 

Answer.  I  regard  the  Bible,  especially  the  Old  Testament, 
the  same  as  I  do  most  other  ancient  books,  in  which  there  is 
some  truth,  a  great  deal  of  error,  considerable  barbarism 
and  a  most  plentiful  lack  of  good  sense. 

Question.  Have  you  found  any  other  work,  sacred  or  pro- 
fane, which  you  regard  as  more  reliable  ? 

Ayiswer.  I  know  of  no  book  less  so,  in  my  judgment. 

Question.  You  have  studied  the  Bible  attentively,  have  you 
not? 

Answer.  I  have  read  the  Bible.  I  have  heard  it  talked 
about  a  good  deal,  and  am  sufl&ciently  well  acquainted  with 
it  to  justify  my  own  mind  in  utterly  rejecting  all  claims 
made  for  its  divine  origin. 

Questio7i.  What  do  you  base  your  views  upon  ? 

Answer.  On  reason,  observation,  experience,  upon  the  dis- 
coveries in  science,  upon  observed  facts  and  the  analogies 
properly  growing  out  of  such  facts.  I  have  no  confidence 
in  anything  pretending  to  be  outside,  or  independent  of,  or 
in  any  manner  above  nature. 

Questio7i.  According  to  your  views,  what  disposition  is 
made  of  man  after  death  ? 

Answer.  Upon  that  subject  I  know  nothing.  It  is  no  more 
wonderful  that  man  should  live  again  than  that  he  now  lives ; 
upon  that  question  I  know  of  no  evidence.     The  doctrine  of 


2  INTERVIEWS. 

immortality  rests  upon  human  affection.  We  love,  therefore 
we  wish  to  live. 

Question,  Then  you  would  not  undertake  to  say  what  be- 
comes of  man  after  death  ? 

Answer.  If  I  told  or  pretended  to  know  what  becomes  of 
man  after  death,  I  would  be  as  dogmatic  as  are  theologians 
upon  this  question.  The  difference  between  them  and  me  is, 
I  am  honest.     I  admit  that  I  do  not  know. 

Question.  Judging  by  your  criticism  of  mankind,  Colonel, 
in  your  recent  lecture,  you  have  not  found  his  condition  very 
satisfactory  ? 

Answer.  Nature,  outside  of  man,  so  far  as  I  know,  is 
neither  cruel  nor  merciful.  I  am  not  satisfied  with  the  pres- 
ent condition  of  the  human  race,  nor  with  the  condition  of 
man  during  any  period  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge.  I 
believe,  however,  the  condition  of  man  is  improved,  and  this 
improvement  is  due  to  his  own  exertions.  I  do  not  make 
nature  a  being.     I  do  not  ascribe  to  nature  intention. 

Question.  Is  your  theory,  Colonel,  the  result  of  investiga- 
tion of  the  subject? 

Answer.  No  one  can  control  his  own  opinion  or  his  own 
belief.  My  belief  was  forced  upon  me  by  my  surroundings! 
I  am  the  product  of  all  circumstances  that  have  in  any  way 
touched  me.  I  believe  in  this  world.  I  have  no  confidence 
in  any  religion  promising  joys  in  another  world  at  the  ex- 
pense of  liberty  and  happiness  in  this.  At  the  same  time,  I 
wish  to  give  others  all  the  rights  I  claim  for  myself. 

Question.  If  I  asked  for  proofs  for  your  theory,  what  would 
you  furnish  ? 

Answer.  The  experience  of  every  man  who  is  honest  with 
himself,  every  fact  that  has  been  discovered  in  nature.  In 
addition  to  these,  the  utter  and  total  failure  of  all  religionists 
in  all  countries  to  produce  one  particle  of  evidence  showing 
the  existence  of  any  supernatural  power  whatever,  and  the 
further  fact  that  the  people  are  not  satisfied  with  their  relig- 


» 


INTERVIEWS.  3 

ion.  They  are  continually  asking  for  evidence.  They  are 
asking  it  in  every  imaginable  way.  The  sects  are  continu- 
ally dividing.  There  is  no  real  religious  serenity  in  the 
world.  All  religions  are  opponents  of  intellectual  liberty.  I 
believe  in  absolute  mental  freedom.  Real  religion  with  me 
is  a  thing  not  of  the  head,  but  of  the  heart ;  not  a  theory, 
:iiot  a  creed,  but  a  life. 

Question.  What  punishment,  then,  is  inflicted  upon  man 
for  crimes  and  wrongs  committed  in  this  life  ? 

Answer.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  intellectual  crime.  No 
man  can  commit  a  mental  crime.  To  become  a  crime  it  must 
go  beyond  thought. 

Qnestion.  What  punishment  is  there  for  physical  crime? 
Answer.  Such  punishment  as  is  necessary  to  protect  so- 
ciety and  for  the  reformation  of  the  criminal. 

Ouestio7i.  If  there  is  only  punishment  in  this  world,  will 
not  some  escape  punishment  ? 

Answer.  I  admit  that  all  do  not  seem  to  be  punished  a^ 
they  deserve.  I  also  admit  that  all  do  not  seem  to  be  re- 
warded as  they  deserve ;  and  there  is  in  this  world,  appar- 
ently, as  great  failures  in  matter  of  reward  as  in  matter  of 
punishment.  If  there  is  another  life,  a  man  will  be  happier 
there  for  acting  according  to  his  highest  ideal  in  this.  But 
I  do  not  discern  in  nature  any  effort  to  do  justice. — The  Posi, 

Washington,  D.  C,  1878. 

MRS.  VAN  COTT,  THE  REVIVALIST. 

Question.  I  see.  Colonel,  that  in  an  interview  published 
this  morning,  Mrs.  Van  Cott  (the  revivalist),  calls  you  "a 
poor  barking  dog."     Do  you  know  her  personally  ? 

Answer.  I  have  never  met  or  seen  her. 

Question:  Do  you  know  the  reason  she  applied  the 
epithet  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  it  to  be  the  natural  result  of  what  it 


4  INTERVIEWS. 

called  vital  piety ;  that  is  to  say,  universal  love  breeds  in- 
dividual hatred. 

Question.  Do  you  intend  making  any  reply  to  what  she 
sa3^s. 

Answer,  I  have  written  her  a  note  of  which  this  is  a 
copy  : 

Buffalo,  Feb.  24th,  1878. 
Mrs.  Van  Cott  : 

My  dear  Madam  : — Were  you  constrained  by  the  love  of  Christ  to 
call  a  man  who  has  never  injured  you  "  a  poor  barking  dog  "  ?  Did 
you  make  this  remark  as  a  Christian,  or  as  a  lady?  Did  you  say 
these  words  to  illustrate  in  some  faint  degree  the  refining  influence 
upon  woman  of  the  religion  you  preach  ? 

What  would  you  think  of  me  if  I  should  retort,  using  your  language, 
changing  only  the  sex  of  the  last  v/ord? 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain, 

Yours  truly, 

R.  G.  INGERSOLL. 

Question.  Well,  what  do  you  think  of  the  religious  re- 
vival system  generally  ? 

Answer.  The  fire  that  has  to  be  blown  all  the  time  is  a 
poor  thing  to  get  warm  by.  I  regard  these  revivals  as 
essentially  barbaric.  I  think  they  do  no  good,  but  much 
harm,  they  make  innocent  people  think  they  are  guilty, 
and  very  mean  people  think  they  are  good. 

Question.  What  is  j^our  opinion  concerning  women  as 
conductors  of  these  revivals  ? 

A?iswer.  I  suppose  those  engaged  in  them  think  they 
are  doing  good.  They  are  probably  honest.  I  think,  how- 
ever, that  neither  men  nor  women  should  be  engaged  in 
frightening  people  into  heaven.  That  is  all  I  wish  to  say 
on    the    subject,    as   I    do    not    think    it    worth   talking 

about. —  The  Express.  Buffalo,  New  York,  Feb.,  1878. 


EUROPEAN  Trip  and  Greenback  Question. 

Questioyt.  What  did  you  do  on  your  European  trip, 
Colonel  ? 

Answer.  I  went  with  my  family  from  New  York  to 
Southampton,  England,  thence  to  London,  and  from  Lon- 
don to  Edinburgh.  In  Scotland  I  visited  every  place 
where  Burns  had  lived,  from  the  cottage  where  he  was  born 
to  the  room  where  he  died.  I  followed  him  from  the 
cradle  to  the  coffin.  I  went  to  Stratford-upon-Avon  for 
the  purpose  of  seeing  all  that  I  could  in  any  way  connected 
with  Shakespeare  ;  next  to  London,  where  we  visited  again 
all  the  places  of  interest,  and  thence  to  Paris,  where  we 
spent  a  couple  of  weeks  in  the  Exposition. 

Question.  And  what  did  you  think  of  it  ? 

Answer.  So  far  as  machinery — so  far  as  the  practical  is 
concerned,  it  is  not  equal  to  ours  in  Philadelphia ;  in  art  it 
is  incomparably  beyond  it.  I  was  very  much  gratified 
to  find  so  much  evidence  in  favor  of  my  theory  that  the 
golden  age  is  in  front  of  us ;  that  mankind  has  been 
advancing,  that  we  did  not  come  from  a  perfect  pair  and 
immediately  commence  to  degenerate.  The  modern 
painters  and  sculptors  are  far  better  and  grander  than  the 
ancient.  I  think  we  excel  in  fine  arts  as  much  as  we  do  in 
agricultural  implements.  Nothing  pleased  me  more  than 
the  paintings  from  Holland,  because  they  idealized  and 
rendered  holy  the  ordinary  avocations  of  life.  They  paint 
cottages  with  sweet  mothers  and  children ;  they  paint 
homes.  They  are  not  much  on  Ariadnes  and  Venuses,  but 
they  paint  good  women. 

Question.  What  did  you  think  of  the  American  display? 

Answer.  Our  part  of  the  Exposition  is  good,  but  nothing 

(5) 


6  INTERVIEWSc 

to  what  it  should  and  might  have  been,  but  we  bring  home 
nearly  as  many  medals  as  we  took  things.  We  lead  the 
world  in  machinery  and  in  ingenious  inventions,  and  some 
of  our  paintings  were  excellent. 

Question.  Colonel,  crossing  the  Atlantic  back  to  America, 
what  do  you  think  of  the  Greenback  movement  ? 

Answer.  In  regard  to  the  Greenback  party,  in  the  first 
place,  I  am  not  a  believer  in  miracles.  I  do  not  believe 
something  can  be  made  out  of  nothing.  The  Government, 
in  my  judgment,  cannot  create  money  ;  the  Government 
can  give  its  note,  like  an  individual,  and  the  prospect  of 
its  being  paid  determines  its  value.  We  have  already  sub- 
stantially resumed.  Every  piece  of  property  that  has  been 
shrinking  has  simply  been  resuming.  We  expended  dur- 
ing the  war — not  for  the  useful,  but  for  the  useless,  not  to 
build  up,  but  to  destroy — at  least  one  thousand  million 
dollars.  The  Government  was  an  enormous  purchaser  ; 
when  the  war  ceased  the  industries  of  the  country  lost  their 
greatest  customer.  As  a  consequence  there  was  a  surplus 
of  production,  and  consequently  a  surplus  of  labor.  At 
last  we  have  gotten  back,  and  the  country  since  the  war 
has  produced  over  and  above  the  cost  of  production,  some- 
thing near  the  amount  that  was  lost  during  the  war.  Our 
exports  are  about  two  hundred  million  dollars  more  than 
our  imports,  and  this  is  a  healthy  sign.  There  are,  how- 
ever, five  or  six  hundred  thousand  men,  probably,  out  of 
employment ;  as  prosperity  increases  this  number  will 
decrease.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Government  doing  some- 
thing to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  these  men.  I  would 
like  to  see  constructed  the  Northern  and  Southern  Pacific 
railroads :  this  would  give  employment  at  once  to  many 
thousands,  and  homes  after  awhile  to  millions.  All  the 
signs  of  the  times  to  me  are  good.  The  wretched  bankrupt 
law,  at  last,  is  wiped  from  the  statute  books,  and  honest 
people  in  a  short  time  can  get  plenty  of  credit.     This  law 


INTERVIEWS.  7 

shotiM  have  been  repealed  years  before  it  was.  It  would 
have  been  far  better  to  have  had  all  who  have  gone  into 
bankruptcy  during  these  frightful  years  to  have  done  so  at 

once. 

Question.  What  will  be  the  political  effect  of  the  Green- 
back movement  ? 

Answer.  The  effect  in  Maine  has  been  to  defeat  the 
Republican  party.  I  do  not  believe  any  party  can  perr 
manently  succeed  in  the  United  States  that  does  not  believe 
in  and  advocate  actual  money.  I  want  to  see  the  green-, 
back  equal  with  gold  the  world  round.  A  money  below 
par  keeps  the  people  below  par.  No  man  can  possibly  be 
proud  of  a  country  that  is  not  willing  to  pay  its  debts. 
Several  of  the  States  this  fall  may  be  carried  by  the  Green- 
back party,  but  if  I  have  a  correct  understanding  of  their 
views,  that  party  cannot  hold  any  State  for  any  great 
length  of  time.  But  all  the  men  of  wealth  should  remem- 
ber that  everybody  in  the  community  has  got,  in  some  way, 
to  be  supported.  I  want  to  see  them  so  that  they  can  sup- 
port themselves  by  their  own  labor.  In  my  judgment  real 
prosperity  will  begin  with  actual  resumption,  because  con- 
fidence will  then  return.  If  the  workingmen  of  the  United 
States  cannot  make  their  living,  cannot  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  labor,  they  have  got  to  be  supported  in  some  way, 
and  in  any  event,  I  want  to  see  a  liberal  policy  inaugurated 
by  the  Government.  I  believe  in  improving  rivers  and 
harbors. 

I  do  not  believe  the  trans-continental  commerce  of 
this  country  should  depend  on  one  railroad.  I  want  new 
territories  opened.  I  want  to  see  American  steamships 
running  to  all  the  great  ports  of  the  world.  I  want  to  see 
our  flag  flying  on  all  the  seas  and  in  all  the  harbors.  We 
have  the  best  country,  and, in  my  judgment,  the  best  peo- 
ple in  the  world,  and  we  ought  to  be  the  most  prosperous 
nation  on  the  earth. 


8  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Then  you  only  consider  the  Greenback  move- 
ment a  temporary  thing  ? 

Answer.  Yes ;  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  anything 
permanent  in  anything  that  is  not  sound,  that  has  not.  a 
perfectly  sound  foundation,  and  I  mean  sound,  sound  in 
every  sense  of  that  word.  It  must  be  wise  and  honest.  We 
have  plenty  of  money ;  the  trouble  is  to  get  it.  If  these 
Greenbackers  will  pass  a  law  furnishing  all  of  us  with  col- 
laterals, there  certainly  would  be  no  trouble  about  getting 
the  money.  Nothing  can  demonstrate  more  fully  the 
plentifulness  of  money  than  the  fact  that  millions  of  four 
per  cent,  bonds  have  been  taken  in  the  United  States.  The 
trouble  is,  business  is  scarce. 

Qtiestion.  But  do  you  not  think  the  Greenback  movement 
will  help  the  Democracy  to  success  in  1880  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  Greenback  movement  will  injure 
the  Republican  party  much  more  than  the  Democratic 
party.  Whether  that  injur}^  will  reach  as  far  as  1880 
depends  simply  upon  one  thing.  If  resumption — in  spite 
of  all  resolutions  to  the  contrary — inaugurates  an  era  of 
prosperity,  as  I  believe  and  hope  it  will,  then  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  Republican  party  will  be  as  strong  in 
the  north  as  in  its  palmiest  days.  Of  course  I  regard  most 
of  the  old  issues  as  settled,  and  I  make  this  statement 
simply  because  I  regard  the  financial  issue  as  the  only  liv- 
ing one. 

Of  course,  I  have  no  idea  who  will  be  the  Democratic 
candidate,  but  I  suppose  the  South  will  be  solid  for  the 
Democratic  nominee,  unless  the  financial  question  divides 
that  section  of  the  country. 

Question,  With  a  solid  South  do  you  not  think  the 
Democratic  nominee  will  stand  a  good  chance  ? 

Answer.  Certainly,  he  will  stand  the  best  chance  if  the 
Democracy  is  right  on  the  financial  question  ;  if  it  will 
cling  to  its  old  idea  of  hard  money,  he  will.     If  the  Demo- 


INTERVIEWS,  9 

crats  will  recognize  that  the  issues  of  the  war  are  settled, 
then  I  think  that  party  has  the  best  chance. 

Qv£stion,  But  if  it  clings  to  soft  money  ? 

Answer.  Then  I  think  it  will  be  beaten,  if  by  soft  money 
it  means  the  payment  of  one  promise  with  another 

Question.  You  consider  Greenbackers  inflationists,  do  you 
not? 

Answer.  I  suppose  the  Greenbackers  to  be  the  party  oi 
inflation.  I  am  in  favor  of  inflation  produced  by  industry. 
I  am  in  favor  of  the  country  being  inflated  with  corn,  with 
wheat,  good  houses,  books,  pictures,  and  plenty  of  labor  for 
everybody.  I  am  in  favor  of  being  inflated  with  gold  and 
silver,  but  I  do  not  believe  in  the  inflation  of  promise,  ex- 
pectation and  speculation.  I  sympathize  with  every  man 
who  is  willing  to  work  and  cannot  get  it,  and  I  sympathize 
to  that  degree  that  I  would  like  to  see  the  fortunate  and 
prosperous  taxed  to  support  his  unfortunate  brother  until 
labor  could  be  found. 

The  Greenback  part)^  seems  to  think  credit  is  just  as 
good  as  gold.  While  the  credit  lasts  this  is  so  ;  but  the 
trouble  is,  whenever  it  is  ascertained  that  the  gold  is  gone 
or  cannot  be  produced  the  credit  takes  wings.  The  bill  of 
a  perfectly  solvent  bank  may  circulate  for  years.  Now, 
because  nobody  demands  the  gold  on  that  bill  it  doesn't 
follow  that  the  bill  would  be  just  as  good  without  any 
gold  behind  it.  The  idea  that  you  can  have  the  gold  when- 
ever you  present  the  bill  gives  it  its  value.  To  illustrate  : 
A  poor  man  bu3^s  soup  tickets.  He  is  not  hungry  at  the 
time  of  the  purchase,  and  will  not  be  for  some  hours. 
During  these  hours  the  Greenback  gentlemen  argue  that 
there  is  no  use  of  keeping  any  soup  on  hand  with  which  to 
redeem  these  tickets,  and  from  this  they  further  argue  that 
if  they  can  be  good  for  a  few  hours  without  soup,  why  not 
forever  ?  And  the3^  would  be,  only  the  holder  gets  hungry. 
Until  he  is  hungry,  of  course,  he  does  not  care  whether 


lO  INTERVIEWS. 

any  soup  is  on  hand  or  not,  but  when  he  presents  his 
ticket  he  wants  his  soup,  and  the  idea  that  he  can  have  the 
soup  when  he  does  present  the  ticket  gives  it  its  value. 
And  so  I  regard  bank  notes,  without  gold  and  silver,  as  of 
the  same  value  as  tickets  without  soup. — T/tePosf,yfashmgton. 

D.  C,  1878. 

THE  PRE-MILLENNIAL  CONFERENCE. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Pre-Millennial  Con- 
ference that  was  held  in  New  York  City  recently  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  think  that  all  who  attended  it  were  be- 
lievers in  the  Bible,  and  any  one  who  believes  in  prophe- 
cies and  looks  to  their  fulfillment  will  go  insane.  A  man 
that  tries  from  Daniel's  ram  with  three  horns  and  five  tails 
and  his  deformed  goats  to  ascertain  the  date  of  the  second 
immigration  of  Christ  to  this  world  is  already  insane.  It 
all  shows  that  the  moment  we  leave  the  realm  of  fact  and 
law  we  are  adrift  on  the  wide  and  shoreless  sea  of  theolog- 
ical speculation. 

Question.  Do  you  think  there  will  be  a  second  coming  ? 
'  Answer.  No,  not  as  long  as  the  church  is  in  power. 
Christ  will  never  again  visit  this  earth  until  the  Free- 
thinkers have  control.  He  will  certainly  never  allow 
another  church  to  get  hold  of  him.  The  very  persons 
who  met  in  New  York  to  fix  the  date  of  his  coming  would 
despise  him  and  the  feeling  would  probably  be  mutual. 
In  his  day  Christ  was  an  Infidel,  and  made  himself  unpop- 
ular by  denouncing  the  church  as  it  then  existed.  He 
called  them  liars,  hypocrites,  thieves,  vipers,  whited  sep- 
ulchres and  fools.  From  the  description  given  of  the  church 
in  that  daj^,  I  am  afraid  that  should  he  come  again,  he 
would  be  provoked  into  using  similar  language.  Of  course, 
I  admit  there  are  many  good  people  in  the  church,  just  as 
there  were  some  good  Pharisees  who  were  opposed  to  the 

crucifixion. —  The  Express,  Buffalo   New  York,  Nov.  4th,  1878. 


THE  SOLID  SOUTH  AND  RHSUMPTION, 

Question.  Colonel,  to  start  with,  what  do  you  think  of  the 
solid  South? 

Aitswer.  I  think  the  South  is  naturally  opposed  to  the 
Republican  party  ;  more,  I  imagine,  to  the  name,  than  to 
the  personnel  of  the  organization.  But  the  South  has 
just  as  good  friends  in  the  Republican  party  as  in  the 
Democratic  party.  I  do  not  think  there  are  any  Repub- 
licans who  would  not  rejoice  to  see  the  South  prosperous 
and  happy.  I  know  of  none,  at  least.  They  will  have  to 
get  over  the  prejudices  born  of  isolation.  We  lack  direct 
and  constant  communication.  I  do  not  recollect  having 
seen  a  newspaper  from  the  Gulf  States  for  a  long  time. 
They,  down  there,  may  imagine  that  the  feeling  in  the 
North  is  the  same  as  during  the  war.  But  it  certainly  is 
not.  The  Northern  people  are  anxious  to  be  friendl}^; 
and  if  they  can  be,  without  a  violation  of  principles,  they 
will  be.  Whether  it  be  true  or  not,  however,  most  of  the 
Republicans  of  the  North  believe  that  no  Republican  in  the 
South  is  heartily  welcome  in  that  section,  whether  he  goes 
there  from  the  North,  or  is  a  Southern  man.  Personally,  I 
do  not  care  anything  about  partisan  politics.  I  want  to  see 
every  man  in  the  United  States  guaranteed  the  right  to 
express  his  choice  at  the  ballot-box,  and  I  do  not  want 
social  ostracism  to  follow  a  man,  no  matter  how  he  may 
vote.  A  solid  South  means  a  solid  North.  A  hundred 
thousand  Democratic  majority  in  South  Carolina  means 
fifty  thousand  Republican  majority  in  New  York  in  1880. 

I  hope  the  sections  will  never  divide,  simply  as  sections. 

(11) 


12  INTERVIEWSo 

But  if  the  Republican  party  is  not  allowed  to  live  in  the 
South,  the  Democratic  party  certainly  will  not  be  allowed 
to  succeed  in  the  North.  I  want  to  treat  the  people  of  the 
South  precisely  as  though  the  Rebellion  had  never  oc- 
curred. I  want  all  that  wiped  from  the  slate  of  memory, 
and  all  I  ask  of  the  Southern  people  is  to  give  the  same 
rights  to  the  Republicans  that  we  are  willing  to  give  to 
them  and  have  given  to  them. 

Question.  How  do  you  account  for  the  results  of  the 
recent  elections  ? 

Answer.  The  Republican  party  won  the  recent  election 
simply  because  it  was  for  honest  money,  and  it  was  in 
favor  of  resumption.  And  if  on  the  first  of  January  next, 
we  resume  all  right,  and  maintain  resumption,  I  see  no 
reason  why  the  Republican  party  should  not  succeed  in 
1880.  The  Republican  party  came  into  power  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Rebellion,  and  necessarily  retained  power 
until  its  close;  and  in  my  judgment,  it  will  retain  power 
so  long  as  in  the  horizon  of  credit  there  is  a  cloud  of  re- 
pudiation as  large  as  a  man's  hand. 

Question.  Do  you  think  resumption  will  work  out  all  right  ? 

Answer,  I  do.  I  think  that  on  the  first  of  January  the  green- 
back will  shake  hands  with  gold  on  an  equality,  and  in  a 
few  days  thereafter  will  be  worth  just  a  little  bit  more. 
Everything  has  resumed,  except  the  Government.  All  the 
property  has  resumed,  all  the  lands,  bonds  and  mortgages 
and  stocks.  All  these  things  resumed  long  ago — that  is  to 
say,  they  have  touched  the  bottom.  Now,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  the  party  that  insists  on  the  Government  paying  all  its 
debts  will  hold  control,  and  no  one  will  get  his  hand  on  the 
wheel  who  advocates  repudiation  in  any  form.  There  is  one 
thing  we  must  do,  though.  We  have  got  to  put  more  silver 
in  our  dollars.  I  do  not  think  you  can  blame  the  New  York 
oanks — any  bank— for  refusing  to  take  eighty-eight  cents 
for  a  dollar.    Neither  can  you  blame  any  depositor  w^ho  puts 


INTERVIEWS.  13 

gold  in  bank  for  demanding  gold  in  return.     Yes,  we  must 
have  in  the  silver  dollar  a  dollar's  worth  of  silver. — Tiie  Com' 

tnercial,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  November,  1878. 

THE  SUNDAY  LAWS  OF  PITTSBURG.* 

Question,  Colonel,  what  do  you  think  of  the  course  the 
Mayor  has  pursued  toward  you  in  attempting  to  stop  your 
lecture  ? 

Answer.  I  know  very  little  except  what  I  have  seen  in 
the  morning  paper.  As  a  general  rule,  laws  should  be  en- 
forced or  repealed ;  and  so  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned, 
I  shall  not  so  much  complain  of  the  enforcing  of  the  law 
against  Sabbath  breaking  as  of  the  fact  that  such  a  law 
exists.  We  have  fallen  heir  to  these  laws.  They  were 
passed  bj'  superstition,  and  the  enlightened  people  of  to- 
day should  repeal  them.  Ministers  should  not  expect  to 
fill  their  churches  by  shutting  up  other  places.  They  can 
only  increase  their  congregations  by  improving  their  sr.r- 
mons.  The}^  will  have  more  hearers  when  they  say  rr^ore 
worth  hearing.  I  have  no  idea  that  the  Mayor  has  any 
prejudice  against  me  personally  and  if  he  only  enforces  the 
law,  I  shall  have  none  against  him.  If  my  lectures  were 
free  the  ministers  might  have  the  right  to  object,  but  as  I 
charge  one  dollar  admission  and  they  nothing,  they  ought 
certainly  to  be  able  to  compete  with  me. 

Question.  Don't  you  think  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Mayor,  as 
chief  executive  of  the  city  laws,  to  enforce  the  ordinances 
and  pay  no  attention  to  what  the  statutes  say  ? 

Answer,  I  suppose  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Mayor  to  en- 
force the  ordinance  of  the  city  ^.nd  if  the  ordinance  of  the 
city  covers  the  same  ground  as  the  law  of  the  State,  a  con- 
viction under  the  ordinance  would  be  a  bar  to  a  prosecu- 
tion under  the  State  law. 

*  The  manager  of  the  theatre.  T^iiere  Col.  Ingersoll  lectured,  was  fined  fifty  dollars 
which  Col.  Ingersoli  paid. 


24  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  If  the   ordinance  exempts   scientific,   literary 
and  historical  lectures,  as  it  is  said  it  does,  will  not  that 
exempt  you  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  all  my  lectures  are  historical ;  that  is,  I 
speak  of  many  things  that  have  happened.  They  are 
scientific  because  they  are  filled  with  facts,  and  they  are 
literary  of  course.  I  can  conceive  of  no  address  that  is 
neither  historical  nor  scientific,  except  sermons.  They  fail 
to  be  historical  because  they  treat  of  things  that  never 
happened  and  they  are  certainly  not  scientific,  as  they  con- 
tain no  facts. 

Question.  Suppose  they  arrest  you  what  will  you  do  ? 

Answer.  I  will  examine  the  law  and  if  convicted  will  pay 
the  fine,  unless  I  think  I  can  reverse  the  case  by  appeal.  Of 
course  I  would  like  to  see  all  these  foolish  law^s  wiped  from 
the  statute  books.  I  want  the  law  so  that  everybody  can 
do  just  as  he  pleases  on  Sunday,  provided  he  does  not  in- 
terfere with  the  rights  of  others.  I  want  the  Christian,  the 
Jew,  the  Deist  and  the  Atheist  to  be  exactly  equal  before 
the  law.  I  would  fight  for  the  right  of  the  Christian  to 
worship  God  in  his  own  way  just  as  quick  as  I  would  for 
the  Atheist  to  enjoy  music,  flowers  and  fields.  I  hope  to 
see  the  time  when  even  the  poor  people  can  hear  the  music 
of  the  finest  operas  on  Sunday.  One  grand  opera  with  all 
its  thrilling  tones,  will  do  more  good  in  touching  and  ele- 
vating the  world  than  ten  thousand  sermons  on  the  agonies 
of  hell. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  been  interfered  wath  before  in 
delivering  Sunday  lectures  ? 

Answer,  No,  I  postponed  a  lecture  in  Baltimore  at  the 
request  of  the  owners  of  the  theatre  because  they  were 
afraid  some  action  might  be  taken.  That  is  the  only  case. 
I  have  delivered  lectures  on  Sunday  in  the  principal  cities 
of  the  United  States,  in  New  York,  Boston,  Buffalo,  Chicago* 
San  Francisco,  Cincinnati  and  many  other  places.     I  lee- 


INTERVIEWS.  15 

tured  here  last  winter; it  was  on  Sunday  and  1  heard 
nothing  of  its  being  contrary  to  law.  I  always  supposed 
my  lectures  were  good  enough  to  be  delivered  on  the  most 

sacred  days. —  The  Leader^  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  October 27,  1879. 

POLITICAL  AND  RELIGIOUS. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  about  the  recent  election, 
and  what  will  be  its  effect  upon  political  matters  and  the 
issues  and  candidates  of  1880  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  Republicans  have  met  with  this 
almost  universal  success  on  account,  first,  of  the  position 
taken  by  the  Democracy  on  the  currency  question  ;  that  is  to 
say,  that  party  was  divided,  and  was  willing  to  go  in  part- 
nership with  anybody,  whatever  their  doctrines  might  be, 
for  the  sake  of  success  in  that  particular  locality.  The 
Republican  party  felt  it  of  paramount  importance  not  only 
to  pay  the  debt,  but  to  pay  it  in  that  which  the  world  regards 
as  money.  The  next  reason  for  the  victory  is  the  position 
assumed  by  the  Democracy  in  Congress  during  the  called 
session.  The  threats  they  then  made  of  what  they  would 
do  in  the  event  that  the  executive  did  not  comply  with  their 
demands,  showed  that  the  spirit  of  that  party  had  not  been 
chastened  to  any  considerable  extent  by  the  late  war.  The 
people  of  this  country  will  not,  in  my  judgment,  allow  the 
South  to  take  charge  of  this  country  until  they  show  their 
ability  to  protect  the  rights  of  citizens  in  their  respective 
States. 

Question.  Then,  as  you  regard  the  victories,  they  are 
largely  due  to  a  firm  adherence  to  principle,  and  the  failure 
of  the  Democratic  party  is  due  to  their  abandonment  of 
principle,  and  their  desire  to  unite  with  anybody  and  every- 
thing, at  the  sacrifice  of  principle,  to  attain  success  ? 

Answer.  Yes.  The  Democratic  party  is  a  general  desire 
for  office  without  organization.     Most  people  are  Democrats 


1 6  INTERVIEWS. 

because  they  hate  something,  most  people  are  Republicans 
because  they  love  something. 

Questio7i,  Do  you  think  the  election  has  brought  about 
any  particular  change  in  the  issues  that  will  be  involved  in 
the  campaign  of  1880  ? 

Answer,  I  think  the  only  issue  is  who  shall  rule  this 
country, 

Questio7i.  Do  you  think,  then,  the  question  of  State  Rights, 
hard  or  soft  money  and  other  questions  that  have  been 
prominent  in  the  campaign  are  practically  settled,  and  so 
regarded  by  the  people  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  money  question  is,  absolutely.  I 
think  the  question  of  State  Rights  is  dead,  except  that  it  can 
still  be  used  to  defeat  the  Democracy.  It  is  what  might  be 
called  a  convenient  political  corpse. 

Question.  Now,  to  leave  the  political  field  and  go  to  the 
religious  at  one  jump — since  your  last  visit  here  much  has 
been  said  and  written  and  published  to  the  effect  that  a  g^eat 
change,  or  a  considerable  change  at  least,  had  taken  place  in 
your  religious,  or  irreligious  views.  I  would  like  to  know 
if  that  is  so  ? 

Answer.  The  only  change  that  has  occurred  in  my  relig- 
ious views  is  the  result  of  finding  more  and  more  arguments 
in  favor  of  my  position,  and,  as  a  consequence,  if  there  is 
any  difference,  I  am  stronger  in  my  convictions  than  ever 
before. 

Question.  I  would  like  to  know  something  of  the  history 
of  your  religious  views  ? 

Answer.  I  may  say  right  here  that  the  Christian  idea  that 
any  God  can  make  me  his  friend  by  killing  mine  is  about  as 
great  a  mistake  as  could  be  made.  They  seem  to  have  the 
idea  that  just  as  soon  as  God  kills  all  the  people  that  a  per- 
son loves,  he  will  then  begin  to  love  the  Lord.  What  drew 
my  attention  first  to  these  questions  was  the  doctrine  of  eter- 
nal punishment     This  was  so  abhorrent  to  my  mind  that  I 


INTERVIEWS.  17 

began  to  hate  the  book  in  which  it  v/as  taught  Then,  in 
reading  law,  going  back  to  find  the  origin  of  laws,  I  found 
one  had  to  go  but  a  little  way  before  the  legislator  and  priest 
united.  This  led  me  to  study  a  good  many  of  the  religions 
of  the  world.  At  first  I  was  greatly  astonished  to  find  most 
of  them  better  than  ours.  I  then  studied  our  own  system  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  and  found  that  people  were  palming 
o£E  upon  children  and  upon  one  another  as  the  inspired 
word  of  God  a  book  that  upheld  slavery,  polygamy  and  al- 
most every  other  crime.  Whether  I  am  right  or  wrong,  I 
became  convinced  that  the  Bible  is  not  an  inspired  book ; 
and  then  the  only  question  for  me  to  settle  was  as  to  whether 
I  should  say  what  I  believed  or  not.  This  really  was  not 
the  question  in  my  mind,  because,  before  even  thinking  of 
such  a  question,  I  expressed  my  belief,  and  I  simply  claim 
that  right  and  expect  to  exercise  it  as  long  as  I  live.  I  may 
be  damned  for  it  in  the  next  world,  but  it  is  a  great  source 
of  pleasure  to  me  in  this. 

Question,  It  is  reported  that  you  are  the  son  of  a  Presby- 
terian minister  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  am  the  son  of  a  New  School  Presbyterian 
minister. 

Question,  About  what  age  were  you  when  you  began  this 
investigation  which  led  to  your  present  convictions  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  remember  when  I  believed  the  Bible 
doctrine  of  eternal  punishment.  I  have  a  dim  recollection 
of  hating  Jehovah  when  I  was  exceedingly  small. 

Question.  Then  your  present  convictions  began  to  form 
themselves  while  you  were  listening  to  the  teachings  of  re- 
ligion as  taught  by  your  father  ? 

Answer.     Yes,  they  did. 

Question.  Did  you  discuss  the  matter  with  him  ? 

Answer.  I  did  for  many  years,  and  before  he  died  he  utterly 
gave  up  the  idea  that  this  life  is  a  period  of  probation.  He 
utterly  gave  up  the  idea  of  eternal  punishment,  and  before 


1 8  INTERVIEWS. 

he  died  he  had  the  happiness  of  believing  that  God  was  al- 
most as  good  and  generous  as  he  was  himself. 

Question,  I  suppose  this  gossip  about  a  change  in  your 
religious  views  arose  or  was  created  by  the  expression  used 
at  your  brother's  funeral,  "  In  the  night  of  death  hope  sees 
a  star  and  listening  love  can  hear  the  rustle  of  a  wing  "  ? 

Answer,  I  never  willingly  will  destroy  a  solitary  human 
hope.  I  have  always  said  that  I  did  not  know  whether  man 
was  or  was  not  immortal,  but  years  before  my  brother  died, 
in  a  lecture  entitled  "  The  Ghosts,"  which  has  since  been 
published,  I  used  the  following  words :  "  The  idea  of  im- 
mortality, that  like  a  sea  has  ebbed  and  flowed  in  the  hu- 
man heart,  with  its  countless  waves  of  hope  and  fear,  beat- 
ing against  the  shores  and  rocks  of  time  and  fate,  was  not 
born  of  any  book,  nor  of  any  creed,  nor  of  any  religion.  It 
was  born  of  human  affection,  and  it  will  continue  to  ebb  and 
flow  beneath  the  mists  and  clouds  of  doubt  and  darkness  as 
long  as  love  kisses  the  lips  of  death.  It  is  the  rainbow — 
Hope,  shining  upon  the  tears  of  grief." 

Question.  The  great  objection  to  your  teaching  urged  by 
your  enemies  is  that  you  constantly  tear  down,  and  never 
build  up? 

Answer.  I  have  just  published  a  little  book  entitled, 
*'Some  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  in  which  I  have  endeavored  to 
give  most  of  the  arguments  I  have  urged  against  the  Penta- 
teuch in  a  lecture  I  delivered  under  that  title.  The  motto 
on  the  title  page  is,  "  A  destroyer  of  weeds,  thistles  and 
thorns  is  a  benefactor,  whether  he  soweth  grain  or  not."  I 
cannot  for  my  life  see  wh}^  one  should  be  charged  with 
tearing  down  and  not  rebuilding  simply  because  he  exposes 
a  sham,  or  detects  a  lie.  I  do  not  feel  under  any  obligation 
to  build  something  in  the  place  of  a  detected  falsehood. 
All  I  think  I  am  under  obligation  to  put  in  the  place  of  a 
detected  lie  is  the  detection.  Most  religionists  talk  as  if 
mistakes  were  valuable  thino--  ;-'nd  they  did  not  wish  to 


INTERVIEWS.  19 

part  with  them  without  a  consideration.  Just  how  much 
they  regard  lies  worth  a  dozen  I  do  not  know.  If  the  price 
is  reasonable  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  give  it,  rather  than 
to  see  them  live  and  give  their  lives  to  the  defence  of  de- 
lusions. I  am  firmly  convinced  that  to  be  happy  here  will 
not  in  the  least  detract  from  our  happiness  in  another  world 
should  we  be  so  fortunate  as  to  reach  another  world  ;  and  I 
cannot  see  the  value  of  any  philosophy  that  reaches  beyond 
the  intelligent  happiness  of  the  present.  There  may  be  a 
God  who  will  make  us  happy  in  another  world.  If  he  does, 
it  will  be  more  than  he  has  accomplished  in  this.  I  sup- 
pose that  he  will  never  have  more  than  infinite  power  and 
never  have  less  than  infinite  wisdom,  and  why  people 
should  expect  that  he  should  do  better  in  another  world 
than  he  has  in  this  is  something  that  I  have  never  been 
able  to  explain.  A  being  who  has  the  power  to  prevent  it 
and  yet  who  allows  thousands  and  millions  of  his  children 
to  starve  ;  who  devours  them  with  earthquakes ;  who  al- 
lows whole  nations  to  be  enslaved,  cannot  in  my  judgment 
be  implicitly  depended  upon  to  do  justice  in  another  world. 

Question.  How  do  the  clergy  generally  treat  you  ? 

A?iswe?'.  Well,  of  course  there  are  the  same  distinctions 
among  clergymen  as  among  other  people.  Some  of  them 
are  quite  respectable  gentlemen,  especially  those  with  whom 
I  am  not  acquainted.  I  think  that  since  the  loss  of  my 
brother  nothing  could  exceed  the  heartlessness  of  the  re- 
marks made  by  the  average  clergyman.  There  have  been 
some  noble  exceptions,  to  whom  I  feel  not  only  thankful 
but  grateful ;  but  a  very  large  majority  have  taken  this 
occasion  to  say  most  unfeeling  and  brutal  things.  I  do  not 
ask  the  clergy  to  forgive  me,  but  I  do  request  that  they 
will  so  act  that  I  will  not  have  to  forgive  them.  I  have 
always  insisted  that  those  who  love  their  enemies  should  at 
least  tell  the  truth  about  their  friends,  but  I  suppose,  after 
all,  that  religion  must  be  supported  by  the  same  means  as 


20  INTERVIEWS. 

those  by  which  it  was  founded.  Of  course,  there  are  thou- 
sands of  good  ministers,  men  who  are  endeavoring  to  make 
the  world  better,  and  whose  failure  is  no  particular  fault  cf 
their  own.  I  have  always  been  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the 
clergy  were  a  necessary  or  an  unnecessary  evil. 

Question.  I  would  like  to  have  a  positive  expression  of 
your  views  as  to  a  future  state  ? 

Answer.  Somebody  asked  Confucius  about  another  world, 
and  his  reply  was  :  '*  How  should  I  know  anything  about 
another  world  when  I  know  so  little  of  this  ? "  For  my 
part,  I  know  nothing  of  any  other  state  of  existence,  either 
before  or  after  this,  and  I  have  never  become  personally 
acquainted  with  anybody  that  did.  There  may  be  another 
life,  and  if  there  is,  the  best  way  to  prepare  for  it  is  b^ 
making  somebody  happy  in  this.  God  certainly  cannot 
afford  to  put  a  man  in  hell  who  has  made  a  little  heaven  in 
this  world.  I  propose  simply  to  take  my  chances  with  the 
rest  of  the  folks,  and  prepare  to  go  where  the  people  I  am 
best  acquainted  with  will  probably  settle.  I  cannot  afford 
to  leave  the  great  ship  and  sneak  off  to  shore  in  some  ortho- 
dox canoe.  I  hope  there  is  another  life,  for  I  would  like  to 
see  how  things  come  out  in  this  world  when  I  am  dead. 
There  are  some  people  I  would  like  to  see  again,  and  hope 
there  are  vSome  who  would  not  object  to  seeing  me  ;  but  if 
there  is  no  other  life  I  shall  never  know  it.  I  do  not  re- 
member a  time  when  I  did  not  exist;  and,  if,  when  I  die, 
that  is  the  end,  I  shall  not  know  it,  because  the  last  thing  I 
shall  know  is  that  I  am  alive,  and  if  nothing  is  left,  nothing 
will  be  left  to  know  that  I  am  dead ;  so  that  so  far  as  I  am 
concerned  I  am  immortal ;  that  is  to  say,  I  cannot  recollect 
when  I  did  not  exist,  and  there  never  will  be  a  time  when 
I  shall  remember  that  I  do  not  exist.  I  would  like  to  have 
several  millions  of  dollars,  and  I  may  say  that  I  have  a 
lively  hope  that  some  day  I  may  be  rich,  but  to  tell  you 
the  truth  I  have  very  little  evidence  of  it.     Our  hope  of 


INTERVIEWS.  21 

immortality  does  not  come  from  any  religion,  but  nearly 
all  religions  come  from  that  hope.  The  Old  Testament,  in- 
stead of  telling  us  that  we  are  immortal,  tells  us  how  we 
lost  immortality.  You  will  recollect  that  if  Adam  and  Eve 
could  have  gotten  to  the  Tree  of  Life,  they  would  have  eaten 
of  its  fruit  and  would  have  lived  forever  ;  but  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  immortality  God  turned  them  out  of  the 
Garden  of  Eden,  and  put  certain  angels  with  swords  or 
sabres  at  the  gate  to  keep  them  from  getting  back.  The 
Old  Testament  proves,  if  it  proves  anything — which  I  do 
not  think  it  does — that  there  is  no  life  after  this  ;  and  the 
New  Testament  is  not  very  specific  on  the  subject.  There 
were  a  great  many  opportunities  for  the  Savior  and  his 
Apostles  to  tell  us  about  another  world,  but  thej^  did  not 
improve  them  to  any  g^eat  extent ;  and  the  only  evidence, 
so  far  as  I  know,  about  another  life  is,  first,  that  we  have 
no  evidence ;  and  secondly,  that  we  are  rather  sorry  that  we 
have  not,  and  wish  we  had.     That  is  about  my  position. 

Question.  According  to  your  observation  of  men,  and 
your  reading  in  relation  to  the  men  and  women  of  the 
world  and  of  the  church,  if  there  is  another  world  divided 
according  to  orthodox  principles  between  the  orthodox  and 
heterodox,  which  of  the  two  that  are  known  as  heaven  and 
hell  would  contain,  in  your  judgment,  the  most  good 
society  ? 

Answer,  Since  hanging  has  got  to  be  a  means  of  grace, 
I  would  prefer  hell.  I  had  a  thousand  times  rather  asso- 
ciate with  the  Pagan  philosophers  than  with  the  inquisitors 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  I  certainly  should  prefer  the  worst 
man  in  Greek  or  Roman  history  to  John  Calvin ;  and  I 
can  imagine  no  man  in  the  world  that  I  would  not  rather 
sit  on  the  same  bench  with  than  the  Puritan  fathers  and  the 
founders  of  orthodox  churches.  I  would  trade  off  my 
harp  any  minute  for  a  seat  in  the  other  country.  AIJ 
the  poets  will  be  in  perdition,  and  the  greatest  thinkers. 


22  INTERVIEWS. 

and,  I  should  think,  most  of  the  women  whose  society  would 
tend  to  increase  the  happiness  of  man;  nearly  all  the  painters, 
nearly  all  the  sculptors,  nearly  all  the  writers  of  plays, 
nearly  all  the  great  actors,  most  of  the  best  musicians,  and 
nearly  all  the  good  fellows — the  persons  who  know  stories, 
who  can  sing  songs,  or  who  will  loan  a  friend  a  dollar.  They 
will  mostly  all  be  in  that  country,  and  if  I  did  not  live  there 
permanently,  I  certainly  would  want  it  so  I  could  spend  my 
winter  months  there.  But,  after  all,  what  I  really  want  to 
do  is  to  destroy  the  idea  of  eternal  punishment.  That  doc- 
trine subverts  all  ideas  of  justice.  That  doctrine  fills  hell 
with  honest  men,  and  heaven  with  intellectual  and  moral 
paupers.  That  doctrine  allows  people  to  sin  on  a  credit. 
That  doctrine  allows  the  basest  to  be  eternally  happy  and 
the  most  honorable  to  suffer  eternal  pain.  I  think  of  all 
doctrines  it  is  the  most  infinitely  infamous,  and  would  dis- 
grace the  lowest  savage ;  and  any  man  who  believes  it,  and 
has  imagination  enough  to  understand  it,  has  the  heart  of  a 
serpent  and  the  conscience  of  a  hyena. 

Question.  Your  objective  point  is  to  destroy  the  doctrine 
of  hell,  is  it  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  because  the  destruction  of  that  doctrine  will 
do  away  with  all  cant  and  all  pretence.  It  will  do  away 
with  all  religious  bigotry  and  persecution.  It  will  allow 
every  man  to  think  and  to  express  his  thought.  It  will  do 
away  with  bigotry  in  all  its  slimy  and  offensive  forms. — 

Chicago  Times,  November  14, 1879. 

POLITICS  AND  GEN.  GRANT. 

Question.  Some  people  have  made  comparisons  between 
the  late  Senators  O.  P.  Morton  and  Zach.  Chandler.  What 
did  you  think  of  them.  Colonel  ? 

Answer^  I  think  Morton  had  the  best  intellectual  grasp  of 
a  question  of  any  man  I  ever  saw.  There  was  an  infinite 
difference  between  tiie  two  men.   Morton's  strength  lay  in 


INTERVIEWS.  23 

proving  a  thing ;  Chandler's  in  asserting  it.  But  Chandler 
was  a  strong  man  and  no  hypocrite. 

Question.  Have  you  any  objection  to  being  interviewed 
as  to  your  ideas  of  Grant,  and  his  position  before  the  people? 

Answer.  I  have  no  reason  for  withholding  my  views  on 
that  or  any  other  subject  that  is  under  public  discussion. 
My  idea  is  that  Grant  can  afford  to  regard  the  presidency 
as  a  broken  toy.  It  would  add  nothing  to  his  fame  if  he 
were  again  elected,  and  would  add  nothing  to  the  debt  of 
gratitude  which  the  people  feel  they  owe  him.  I  do  not 
think  he  will  be  a  candidate.  I  do  not  think  he  wants  it. 
There  are  men  who  are  pushing  him  on  their  own  account. 
Grant  was  a  great  soldier.  He  won  the  respect  of  the  civi- 
lized world.  He  commanded  the  largest  army  that  ever 
fought  for  freedom,  and  to  make  him  President  would  not 
add  a  solitary  leaf  to  the  wreath  of  fame  already  on  his 
brow ;  and  should  he  be  elected,  the  only  thing  he  could  do 
would  be  to  keep  the  old  wreath  from  fading. 

I  do  not  think  his  reputation  can  ever  be  as  great  in  any 
direction  as  in  the  direction  of  war.  He  has  made  his  repu- 
tation and  has  lived  his  great  life.  I  regard  him,  confessedly, 
as  the  best  soldier  the  Anglo-Saxon  blood  has  produced.  I 
do  not  know  that  it  necessarily  follows  because  he  is  a 
great  soldier  he  is  great  in  other  directions.  Probably  some 
of  the  greatest  statesmen  in  the  world  would  have  made 
the  worst  soldiers. 

Qtiestion.  Do  you  regard  him  as  more  popular  now  than 
ever  before  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  his  reputation  is  certainly  greater 
and  higher  than  when  he  left  the  presidency,  and  mainly 
because  he  has  represented  this  country  with  so  much  dis- 
cretion and  with  such  quiet,  poised  dignity  all  around  the 
world.  He  has  measured  himself  with  kings,  and  was  able 
to  look  over  the  heads  of  every  one  of  them.  They  were 
not  quite  as  tall  as  he  was,  even  adding  the  crown  to  their 


24  INTERVIEWS. 

original  height.  I  think  he  represented  us  abroad  with 
wonderful  success.  One  thing  that  touched  me  very  much 
was,  that  at  a  reception  given  him  by  the  workingmen  of 
Birmingham,  after  he  had  been  received  by  royalty,  he  had 
the  courage  to  say  that  that  reception  gave  him  more 
pleasure  than  any  other.  He  has  been  throughout  perfectly 
true  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and  has  not  upon 
any  occasion  exhibited  the  slightest  toadyism.  Grant  is  a 
man  who  is  not  greatly  affected  by  either  flattery  or  abuse. 

Question.  What  do  you  believe  to  be  his  position  in  regard 
to  the  presidency  ? 

Answer.  My  own  judgment  is  that  he  does  not  care.  I 
do  not  think  he  has  any  enemies  to  punish,  and  I  think  that 
while  he  was  President  he  certainly  rewarded  most  of  his 
friends. 

Question.  What  are  your  views  as  to  a  third  term  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  objection  to  a  third  term  on  principle, 
but  so  many  men  want  the  presidency  that  it  seems  almost 
cruel  to  give  a  third  term  to  anyone. 

Question.  Then,  if  there  is  no  objection  to  a  third  term, 
what  about  a  fourth  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  that  could  be  objected  to, 
either.  We  have  to  admit,  after  all,  that  the  American 
people,  or  at  least  a  majority  of  them,  have  a  right  to  elect 
one  man  as  often  as  they  please.  Personally,  I  think  it 
should  not  be  done  unless  in  the  case  of  a  man  who  is 
prominent  above  the  rest  of  his  fellow-citizens,  and  whose 
election  appears  absolutely  necessary.  But  I  frankly  confess 
I  cannot  conceive  of  any  political  situation  where  one  man 
is  a  necessity.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  one-man-on-horse- 
back  idea,  because  I  believe  in  all  the  people  being  on  horse- 
back. 

Question.  What  will  be  the  effect  of  the  enthusiastic  re- 
ceptions that  are  being  given  to  General  Grant  ? 

Answer,  I  think  these  ovations  show  that  the  people  are 


INTERVIEWS.  25 

resolved  not  to  lose  the  results  of  the  great  victories  of  the 
war,  and  that  they  make  known  this  determination  by  their 
attention  to  General  Grant.  I  think  that  if  he  goes  through 
the  principal  cities  of  this  country  the  old  spirit  will  be 
revived  everywhere,  and  whether  it  makes  him  President  or 
not  the  result  will  be  to  make  the  election  go  Republican. 
The  revival  of  the  memories  of  the  war  will  bring  the  people 
of  the  North  together  as  closely  as  at  any  time  since  that 
great  conflict  closed,  not  in  the  spirit  of  hatred,  or  malice 
or  envy,  but  in  generous  emulation  to  preserve  that  which 
was  fairly  won.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  hatred  about 
it,  but  we  are  beginning  to  see  that  we  must  save  the  South 
ourselves,  and  that  that  is  the  only  way  we  can  save  the 
nation. 

Question.  But  suppose  they  give  the  same  receptions  in 
the  South? 

Answer.  So  much  the  better. 

Question.  Is  there  any  split  in  the  solid  South  ? 

Answer.  Some  of  the  very  best  people  in  the  South  are 
apparently  disgusted  with  following  the  Democracy  any 
longer,  and  would  hail  with  delight  any  opportunity  they 
could  reasonably  take  advantage  of  to  leave  the  organiza- 
tion, if  they  could  do  so  without  making  it  appear  that  they 
were  going  back  on  Southern  interests,  and  this  opportunity 
will  come  when  the  South  becomes  enlightened,  and  sees 
that  it  has  no  interests  except  in  common  with  the  whole 
country.     That  I  think  they  are  beginning  to  see. 

Question.  How  do  you  like  the  administration  of  President 
Hayes  ? 

Answer.  I  think  its  attitude  has  greatly  improved  of  late. 
There  are  certain  games  of  cards — pedro  for  instance,  where 
you  can  not  only  fail  to  make  something,  but  be  set  back,  I 
think  that  Hayes's  veto  messages  very  nearly  got  him  back 
to  the  commencement  of  the  game — that  he  is  now  almost 
ready  to  commence  counting,  and  make  some  points.     His 


26  INTERVIEWS. 

position  before  the  country  has  greatly  improved,  but  he 
will  not  develop  into  a  dark  horse.  My  preference,  is  of 
course,  still  for  Blaine. 

Question.  Where  do  you  think  it  is  necessary  the  Republi- 
can candidate  should  come  from  to  insure  success  ? 

Answer.  Somewhere  out  of  Ohio.  I  think  it  will  go  to 
Maine,  and  for  this  reason :  first  of  all,  Blaine  is  certainlj^  a 
competent  man  of  affairs,  a  man  who  knows  what  to  do  at 
the  time ;  and  then  he  has  acted  in  such  a  chivalric  way 
ever  since  the  convention  at  Cincinnati,  that  those  who 
opposed  him  most  bitterly,  now  have  for  him  nothing  but 
admiration.  I  think  John  Sherman  is  a  man  of  decided 
ability,  but  I  do  not  believe  the  American  people  would 
make  one  brother  President,  while  the  other  is  General  of 
the  Army.  It  would  be  giving  too  much  power  to  one 
family. 

Question.  What  are  your  conclusions  as  to  the  future  of 
the  Democratic  party  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  Democratic  party  ought  to  disband. 
I  think  they  would  be  a  great  deal  stronger  disbanded,  be- 
cause they  would  get  rid  of  their  reputation  without  de- 
creasing. 

Question.  But  if  they  will  not  disband  ? 

Answer.  Then  the  next  campaign  depends  undoubtedly 
upon  New  York  and  Indiana.  I  do  not  see  how  they  can 
very  well  help  nominating  a  man  from  Indiana,  and  by  that 
I  mean  Hendricks.  You  see  the  South  has  one  hundred 
and  thirty-eight  votes,  all  supposed  to  be  Democratic ;  with 
the  thirty-five  from  New  York  and  fifteen  from  Indiana 
they  would  have  just  three  to  spare.  Now,  I  take  it,  that 
the  fifteen  from  Indiana  are  just  about  as  essential  as  the 
thirty-five  from  New  York.  To  lack  fifteen  votes  is  nearly 
as  bad  as  being  thirty-five  short,  and  so  far  as  drawing 
salary  is  concerned  it  is  quite  as  bad.  Mr.  Hendricks 
ought  to  know  that  he  Holds  the  key  to  Indiana,  and  that 


INTERVIEWS.  27 

there  cannot  be  any  possibility  of  carrying  this  State  for 
Democracy  without  him.  He  has  tried  running  for  the 
vice-presidency,  which  is  not  much  of  a  place  anyhow — 
I  would  about  as  soon  be  vice-mother-in-law — and  my 
judgment  is  that  he  knows  exactly  the  value  of  his  geo- 
graphical position.  New  York  is  divided  to  that  degree 
that  it  would  be  unsafe  to  take  a  candidate  from  that  State; 
and  besides,  New  York  has  become  famous  for  furnishing 
defeated  candidates  for  the  Democracy.  I  think  the  man 
must  come  from  Indiana. 

Question.  Would  the  Democracy  of  New  York  unite  on 
Seymour  ? 

Answer.  You  recollect  what  Lincoln  said  about  the 
powder  that  had  been  shot  off  once.  I  do  not  remember 
any  man  who  has  once  made  a  race  for  the  presidency  and 
been  defeated  ever  being  again  nominated. 

Question.  What  about  Bayard  and  Hancock  as  candidates? 

Answer.  I  do  not  see  how  Bayard  could  possibly  carry 
Indiana,  while  his  own  State  is  too  small  and  too  solidly 
Democratic.  My  idea  of  Bayard  is  that  he  has  not  been 
good  enough  to  be  popular,  and  not  bad  enough  to  be 
famous.  The  American  people  will  never  elect  a  President 
from  a  State  with  a  whipping-post.  As  to  General  Han- 
cock, you  may  set  it  down  as  certain  that  the  South  will 
never  lend  their  aid  to  elect  a  man  who  helped  to  put  down 
the  Rebellion.  It  would  be  just  the  same  as  the  effort  to 
elect  Greeley.  It  cannot  be  done.  I  see,  by  the  way,  that 
I  am  reported  as  having  said  that  David  Davis,  as  the 
Democratic  candidate,  could  carry  Illinois.  I  did  say  that 
in  1876,  he  could  have  carried  it  against  Hayes;  but 
whether  he  could  carry  Illinois  in  1880  would  depend  al- 
together upon  who  runs  against  him.  The  condition  of 
things  has  changed  greatly  in  our  favor  since  i^'j^.—Thejour- 

nal,  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  Noyember,  1879. 


POLITICS,  RELIGION  AND  THOMAS  PAINE. 

Question.  You  have  traveled  about  this  State  more  or  less, 
lately,  and  have,  of  course,  observed  political  affairs  here. 
Do  you  think  that  Senator  Logan  will  be  able  to  deliver 
this  State  to  the  Grant  movement  according  to  the  under- 
stood plan  ? 

Answer.  If  the  State  is  really  for  Grant,  he  will,  and  if 
it  is  not,  he  will  not.  Illinois  is  as  little  "owned"  as  any 
State  in  this  Union.  Illinois  would  naturally  be  for  Grant, 
other  things  being  equal,  because  he  is  regarded  as  a  citizen 
of  this  State,  and  it  is  very  hard  for  a  State  to  give  up  the 
patronage  naturally  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  the  Presi- 
dent comes  from  that  State. 

Questio7i.  Will  the  instructions  given  to  delegates  be  final  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  they  will  be  considered  final  at  all ; 
neither  do  I  think  they  will  be  considered  of  any  force.  It 
was  decided  at  the  last  convention,  in  Cincinnati,  that  the 
delegates  had  a  right  to  vote  as  they  pleased ;  that  each  dele- 
gate represented  the  district  of  his  State  that  sent  him.  The 
idea  that  a  State  convention  can  instruct  them  as  against  the 
wishes  of  their  constituents  smacks  a  little  too  much  of  State 
sovereignty.  The  President  should  be  nominated  by  the 
districts  of  the  whole  country,  and  not  by  massing  the  votes 
by  a  little  chicanery  at  a  State  convention,  and  every  dele- 
gate ought  to  vote  what  he  really  believes  to  be  the  sentiment 
of  his  constituents,  irrespective  of  what  the  State  conven- 
tion may  order  him  to  do.  He  is  not  responsible  to  the 
State  convention,  and  it  is  none  of  the  State  convention's 
business.  This  does  not  apply,  it  may  be,  to  the  delegates 
at  large,  but  to  all  the  others  it  certainly  must  apply.  It 
was  so  decided  at  the  Cincinnati  convention,  and  decided  on 
a  question  arising  about  this  same  Pennsylvania  delegation, 

(28) 


INTERVIEWS. 


29 


Qiiestion.  Can  you  guess  as  to  what  the  platform  is  going 
to  contain  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  it  will  be  a  substantial  copy  of  the  old 
one.  I  am  satisfied  with  the  old  one  with  one  addition.  I 
want  a  plank  to  the  effect  that  no  man  shall  be  deprived  of 
any  civil  or  political  right  on  account  of  his  religious  or 
irreligious  opinions.  The  Republican  party  having  been 
foremost  in  freeing  the  body  ought  to  do  just  a  little  some- 
thing now  for  the  mind.  After  having  wasted  rivers  of 
blood  and  treasure  uncounted,  and  almost  uncountable,  to 
free  the  cage,  I  propose  that  something  ought  to  be  done  for 
the  bird.  Every  decent  man  in  the  United  States  would 
support  that  plank.  People  should  have  a  right  to  testify  in 
courts,  whatever  their  opinions  may  be,  on  any  subject. 
Justice  should  not  shut  any  door  leading  to  truth,  and  as 
long  as  just  views  neither  affect  a  man's  eyesight  or  his 
memory,  he  should  be  allowed  to  tell  his  story.  And  there 
are  two  sides  to  this  question,  too.  The  man  is  not  only  de- 
prived of  his  testimony,  but  the  commonwealth  is  deprived 
of  it.  There  should  be  no  religious  test  in  this  country  for 
ofl&ce;  and  if  Jehovah  cannot  support  his  religion  without 
going  into  partnership  with  a  State  Legislature,  I  think  he 
ought  to  give  it  up. 

Question.  Is  there  anything  new  about  religion  since  you 
were  last  here  ? 

Answer.  Since  I  was  here  I  have  spoken  in  a  great  many 
cities,  and  to-morrow  I  am  going  to  do  some  missionary 
work  at  Milwaukee.  Many  who  have  come  to  scoff  have 
remained  to  pray,  and  I  think  that  my  labors  are  being  great- 
ly blessed,  and  all  attacks  on  me  so  far  have  been  overruled 
for  good.  I  happened  to  come  in  contact  with  a  revival  of 
religion,  and  I  believe  what  they  call  an  "outpouring"  at 
Detroit,  under  the  leadership  of  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of 
Pentecost.  He  denounced  me  as  God's  greatest  enemj^  I 
had  always  supposed  that  the  Devil  occupied  that  exalted 


30 


INTERVIEWS. 


position,  but  it  seems  that  I  have,  in  some  way,  fallen  heir 
to  his  shoes.  Mr.  Pentecost  also  denounced  all  business 
men  who  would  allow  any  advertisements  or  lithographs  of 
mine  to  hang  in  their  places  of  business,  and  several  of  the 
gentlemen  thus  appealed  to  took  the  advertisements  away. 
The  result  of  all  this  was  that  I  had  the  largest  house  that 
ever  attended  a  lecture  in  Detroit.  Feeling  that  ingratitude 
is  a  crime,  I  publicly  returned  thanks  to  the  clergy  for  the 
pains  they  had  taken  to  give  me  an  audience.  And  I  may 
say,  in  this  connection,  that  if  the  ministers  do  God  as  little 
good  as  they  do  me  harm,  they  had  better  let  both  of  us 
alone.  I  regard  them  as  very  good,  but  exceedingly  mis- 
taken men.  They  do  not  come  much  in  contact  with  the 
world,  and  get  most  of  their  views  by  talking  with  the 
women  and  children  of  their  congregations.  They  are  not 
permitted  to  mingle  freely  with  society.  They  cannot  at- 
tend plays  nor  hear  operas.  I  believe  some  of  them  have  ven- 
tured to  minstrel  shows  and  menageries,  where  they  confine 
themselves  strictly  to  the  animal  part  of  the  entertainment. 
But,  as  a  rule,  they  have  very  few  opportunities  of  ascertain- 
ing what  the  real  public  opinion  is.  They  read  religious 
papers,  edited  by  gentlemen  who  know  as  little  about  the 
world  as  themselves,  and  the  result  of  all  this  is  that  they 
are  rather  behind  the  times.  They  are  good  men,  and  would 
like  to  do  right  if  they  only  knew  it,  but  they  are  a  little  be- 
hind the  times.  There  is  an  old  story  told  of  a  fellow  who 
had  a  post-ofi5ce  in  a  small  town  in  North  Carolina,  and  be- 
ing the  only  man  in  the  town  who  could  read,  a  few  people 
used  to  gather  in  the  post-office  on  Sunday,  and  he  would 
read  to  them  a  weekly  paper  that  was  published  in  Wash- 
ington. He  commenced  always  at  the  top  of  the  first  column 
and  read  right  straight  through,  articles,  advertisements,  and 
all,  and  whenever  they  got  a  little  tired  of  reading  he  would 
make  a  mark  of  red  ochre  and  commence  at  that  place  the 
next  Sunday.     The  result  was  that  the  papers  came  a  great 


INTERVIEWS.  31 

deal  faster  than  he  read  them,  and  it  was  about  181 7  when 
they  struck  the  war  of  1812.  The  moment  they  got  to  that, 
every  one  of  them  jumped  up  and  offered  to  volunteer.  All 
of  which  shows  that  they  were  patriotic  people,  but  a  little 
slow,  and  somewhat  behind  the  times. 

Question,  How  were  you  pleased  with  the  Paine  meeting 
here,  and  its  results  ? 

Answer.  I  was  gratified  to  see  so  many  people  willing  at 
last  to  do  justice  to  a  great  and  a  maligned  man.  Of  course 
I  do  not  claim  that  Paine  was  perfect.  All  I  claim  is  that 
he  was  a  patriot  and  a  political  philosopher ;  that  he  was  a 
revolutionist  and  an  agitator ;  that  he  was  infinitely  full  of 
suggestive  thought,  and  that  he  did  more  than  any  man  to 
convince  the  people  of  America  not  only  that  they  ought  to 
separate  from  Great  Britain,  but  that  they  ought  to  found  a 
representative  government.  He  has  been  despised  simply 
because  he  did  not  believe  the  Bible.  I  wish  to  do  what  I 
can  to  rescue  his  name  from  theological  defamation.  I 
think  the  day  has  come  when  Thomas  Paine  will  be  remem- 
bered with  Washington,  Franklin  and  Jefferson,  and  that 
the  American  people  will  wonder  that  their  fathers  could 

have  been  guilty  of  such  base  ingratitude. — Chicago  Times,  Feb- 
ruary 8,  1880. 

REPLY  TO  CHICAGO  CRITICS. 

QuesHo7i.  Have  you  read  the  replies  of  the  clergy  to 
your  recent  lecture  in  this  city  on  ''  What  Must  we  do  to 
be  Saved  ?  "  and  if  so  what  do  you  think  of  them  ? 

Answer.  I  think  they  dodge  the  point.  The  real  point 
is  this  :  If  salvation  by  faith  is  the  real  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, I  asked  on  Sunday  before  last,  and  I  still  ask,  why 
didn't  Matthew  tell  it  ?  I  still  insist  that  Mark  should  have 
remembered  it,  and  I  shall  always  believe  that  Luke  ought, 
at  least,  to  have  noticed  it.  I  was  endeavoring  to  show 
that  modern  Christianity  has  for  its  basis  an  interpolation.- 


32  INTERVIEWS. 

I  think  I  showed  it.  The  only  gospel  on  the  orthodox 
side  is  that  of  John,  and  that  was  certainly  not  written,  or 
did  not  appear  in  its  present  form,  until  long  after  the 
others  were  written. 

I  know  very  well  that  the  Catholic  Church  claimed  dur- 
ing the  Dark  Ages,  and  still  claims,  that  references  had 
been  made  to  the  gospels  by  persons  living  in  the  first, 
second,  and  third  centuries;  but  I  believe  such  manuscripts 
were  manufactured  by  the  Catholic  Church.  For  many 
years  in  Europe  there  was  not  one  person  in  twenty  thou- 
sand who  could  read  and  write.  During  that  time  the 
church  had  in  its  keeping  the  literature  of  our  world. 
They  interpolated  as  they  pleased.  They  created.  They 
destroyed.  In  other  words,  they  did  whatever  in  their 
opinion  was  necessary  to  substantiate  the  faith. 

The  gentlemen  who  saw  fit  to  reply  did  not  answer  the 
question,  and  I  again  call  upon  the  clergy  to  explain  to  the 
people  why,  if  salvation  depends  upon  belief  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  Matthew  didn't  mention  it.  Some  one  has 
said  that  Christ  didn't  make  known  this  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion by  belief  or  faith  until  after  his  resurrection.  Cer- 
tainly none  of  the  gospels  were  written  until  after  his 
resurrection  ;  and  if  he  made  that  doctrine  known  after  his 
resurrection,  and  before  his  ascension,  it  should  have  been 
in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  as  well  as  in  John. 

The  replies  of  the  clergy  show  that  they  have  not  in- 
vestigated the  subject ;  that  they  are  not  well  acquainted 
with  the  New  Testament.  In  other  words,  they  have  not 
read  it  except  with  the  regulation  theological  bias. 

There  is  one  thing  I  wish  to  correct  here.  In  an  editorial 
in  the  Tribune  it  was  stated  that  I  had  admitted  that  Christ 
was  beyond  and  above  Buddha,  Zoroaster,  Confucius,  and 
others.  1  did  not  say  so.  Another  point  was  made  against 
me,  and  those  who  made  it  seemed  to  think  it  was  a  good 
one.     In  my  lecture  I  asked  why  it  was  that  the  disciples 


INTERVIEWS.  33 

of  Christ  wrote  In  Greek,  whereas,  in  fact,  they  understood 
only  Hebrew.  It  is  now  claimed  that  Greek  was  the 
language  of  Jerusalem  at  that  time;  that  Hebrew  had 
fallen  into  disuse;  that  no  one  understood  it  except  the 
literati  and  the  highly  educated.  If  I  fell  into  an  error 
upon  this  point  it  was  because  I  relied  upon  the  New 
Testament.  I  find  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of  the  Acts 
an  account  of  Paul  having  been  mobbed  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  ;  that  he  was  protected  by  a  chief  captain  and 
some  soldiers ;  that,  while  upon  the  stairs  of  the  castle  to 
which  he  was  being  taken  for  protection,  he  obtained  leave 
from  the  captain  to  speak  unto  the  people.  In  the  fortieth 
verse  of  that  chapter  I  find  the  following  ; 

**And  when  he  had  given  him  Hcense,  Paul  stood  on  the  stairs  and 
beckoned  with  the  hand  unto  the  people.  And  when  there  was  made 
a  great  silence,  he  spake  unto  them  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  saying," 

And  then  follows  the  speech  of  Paul,  wherein  he  gives 
an  account  of  his  conversion.  It  seems  a  little  curious 
to  me  that  Paul,  for  the  purpose  of  quieting  a  mob,  would 
speak  to  that  mob  in  an  unknown  language.  If  I  were 
mobbed  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  wished  to  defend  my- 
self with  an  explanation,  I  certainly  would  not  make  that 
explanation  in  Choctaw,  even  if  I  understood  that  tongue. 
My  present  opinion  is  that  I  would  speak  in  English ;  and 
the  reason  I  would  speak  in  English  is  because  that 
language  is  generally  understood  in  this  city,  and  so  I 
conclude  from  the  account  in  the  twenty-first  chapter  of 
the  Acts  that  Hebrew  was  the  language  of  Jerusalem  at  that 
time,  or  that  Paul  would  not  have  addressed  the  mob  in  that 
tongue. 

Question.  Did  you  read  Mr.  Courtney's  answer  ? 

Answer.  I  read  what  Mr.  Courtney  read  from  others,  anfi 
think  some  of  his  quotations  very  good  ;  and  have  no 
doubt  that  the  authors  will  feel  complimented  by  being 
quoted.     There  certainly  is  no  need  of  my  answering  Drr 


34  INTERVIEWS. 

Courtney  ;  sometime  I  may  answer  the  French  gentlemen 
from  whom  he  quoted^ 

Question.    But    what    about    there    being    "  belief "    in 
Matthew  ? 

A?iswer.  Mr.  Courtney  says  that  certain  people  were  cured 
of  diseases  on  account  of  faith.  Admitting  that  mumps, 
measles,  and  whooping-cough  could  be  cured  in  that  way, 
there  is  not  even  a  suggestion  that  salvation  depended 
upon  a  like  faith.  I  think  he  can  hardly  afford  to  rely 
upon  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  to  prove  his 
doctrine.  There  is  one  instance  in  which  a  miracle  was 
performed  by  Christ  without  his  knowledge ;  and  I  hardly 
think  that  even  Mr.  Courtney  would  insist  that  any  faith 
could  have  been  great  enough  for  that.  The  fact  is,  I 
believe  that  all  these  miracles  were  ascribed  to  Christ  long 
after  his  death,  and  that  Christ  never,  at  any  time  or  place, 
pretended  to  have  any  supernatural  power  whatever. 
Neither  do  I  believe  that  he  claimed  any  supernatural 
origin.  He  claimed  simpl}''  to  be  a  man;  no  less,  no  more. 
I  do  not  believe  Mr.  Courtney  is  satisfied  with  his  own  reply. 

Questio7i.  And  now  as  to  Prof.  Swing  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Swing  has  been  out  of  the  orthodox  church 
so  long  that  he  seems  to  have  forgotten  the  reasons  for 
which  he  left  it.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  an  orthodox 
minister  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who  will  agree  with  Mr. 
Swing  that  salvation  by  faith  is  no  longer  preached.  Prof. 
Swing  seems  to  think  it  of  no  importance  who  wrote  the 
gospel  of  Matthew.  In  this  I  agree  with  him.  Judging 
from  what  he  said  there  is  hardl}^  difference  enough  of 
opinion  between  us  to  justify  a  reply  on  his  part.  He, 
however  makes  one  mistake.  I  did  not  in  the  lecture  say 
one  word  about  tearing  down  churches.  I  have  no  objec- 
tion to  people  building  all  the  churches  they  wish.  While 
I  admit  that  it  is  a  pretty  sight  to  see  children  on  a  morn- 
ing in  June  going  through  the  fields  to  the  country  church. 


INTERVIEWS.  35 

I  Still  insist  that  the  beauty  of  that  sight  does  not 
answer  the  question  how  it  is  that  Matthew  forgot  to  say 
anything  about  salvation  through  Christ.  Prof.  Swing  is 
a  man  of  poetic  temperament,  but  this  is  not  a  poetic 
question. 

Question.  How  did  the  card  of  Dr.  Thomas  strike  you  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  reply  of  Dr.  Thomas  is  in  the  best 
possible  spirit.  I  regard  him  to-day  as  the  best  intellect  in 
the  Methodist  denomination.  He  seems  to  have  what  is 
generally  understood  as  a  Christian  spirit.  He  has  always 
treated  me  with  perfect  fairness,  and  I  should  have  said 
long  ago  many  grateful  things,  had  I  not  feared  I  might 
hurt  him  with  his  own  people.  He  seems  to  be  by  nature 
a  perfectly  fair  man ;  and  I  know  of  no  man  in  the  United 
States  for  whom  I  have  a  profounder  respect.  Of  course,  I 
don't  agree  with  Dr.  Thomas.  I  think  in  many  things  he 
is  mistaken.  But  I  believe  him  to  be  perfectly  sincere. 
There  is  one  trouble  about  him — he  is  growing ;  and  this 
fact  will  no  doubt  give  great  trouble  to  many  of  his 
brethren.  Certain  Methodist  hazel-brush  feel  a  little  un- 
easy in  the  shadow  of  this  oak.  To  see  the  difference  be- 
tween him  and  some  others,  all  that  is  necessary  is  to  read 
his  reply,  and  then  read  the  remarks  made  at  the  Methodist 
ministers'  meeting  on  the  Monday  following.  Compared 
with  Dr.  Thomas,  they  are  as  puddles  by  the  sea.  There  is 
the  same  difference  that  there  is  between  sewers  an4 
rivers,  cesspools  and  springs. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  to  the  remarks  of  the 
ReVo  Dr„  Jewett  before  the  Methodist  ministers'  meeting  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Dr.  Jewett  is  extremely  foolish.  I  did 
not  say  that  I  would  commence  suit  against  a  minister 
for  libel.  I  can  hardly  conceive  of  a  proceeding  that 
would  be  less  liable  to  produce  a  dividend.  The  fact  about 
it  is,  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Jewett  seems  to  think  anything  true 
that  he  hears  against  me.     Mr.  Jewett  is  probably  ashamed 


3^  INTERVIEWS. 

of  what  he  said  by  this  time.  He  must  have  known  it  to 
be  entirely  false.  It  seems  to  me  by  this  time  even  the 
most  bigoted  should  lose  their  confidence  in  falsehood.  Of 
course  there  are  times  when  a  falsehood  well  told  bridges 
over  quite  a  difficulty,  but  in  the  long  run  you  had  better 
tell  the  truth,  even  if  you  swim  the  creek.  I  am  astonished 
that  these  ministers  were  willing  to  exhibit  their  wounds 
to  the  world.  I  supposed  of  course  I  would  hit  some,  but 
I  had  no  idea  of  wounding  so  many. 

Qtiestion.  Mr.  Crafts  stated  that  you  were  in  the  habit  of 
swearing  in  company  and  before  your  family  ? 

Aiiswer.  I  often  swear.  In  other  words,  I  take  the  name 
of  God  in  vain  :  that  is  to  say,  I  take  it  without  any  prax:- 
tical  thing  resulting  from  it,  and  in  that  sense  I  think 
most  ministers  are  guilty  of  the  same  thing.  I  heard  an 
old  story  of  a  clergyman  who  rebuked  a  neighbor  for 
swearing,  to  whom  the  neighbor  replied,  *'  You  pray  and  I 
swear,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  neither  of  us  means  anything 
by  it."  As  to  the  charge  that  I  am  in  the  habit  of  using 
indecent  language  in  my  family,  no  reply  is  needed,  I  am 
willing  to  leave  that  question  to  the  people  who  know  us 
both,  Mr.  Crafts  says  he  was  told  this  by  a  lady.  This 
cannot  by  any  possibility  be  true,  for  no  lady  Vvdll  tell  a 
falsehood.  Besides,  if  this  woman  of  whom  he  speaks  was 
a  lady,  how  did  she  happen  to  stay  where  obscene  language 
was  being  used  ?  No  lady  ever  told  Mr.  Crafts  any  such 
thing.  It  may  be  that  a  lady  did  tell  him  that  I  used  pro- 
fane language.  I  admit  that  I  have  not  always  spoken  of 
the  Devil  in  a  respectful  way ;  that  I  have  sometimes 
referred  to  his  residence  when  it  was  not  a  necessary  part 
of  the  conversation,  and  that  at  divers  times  I  have  used  a 
good  deal  of  the  terminology  of  the  theologian  when  the 
exact  words  of  the  scientist  might  have  done  as  well.  But 
if  by  swearing  is  meant  the  use  of  God's  name  in  vain, 
there  are  very  few  preachers  who  do  not  swear  more  than 


INTERVIEWS.  37 

I  do,  if  by  "  in  vain  "  is  meant  without  any  practical  result. 
I  leave  Mr.  Crafts  to  cultivate  the  acquaintance  of  the  un- 
known lady,  knowing  as  I  do,  that  after  they  have  talked 
this  matter  over  again  they  will  find  that  both  have  been 
mistaken. 

I  sincerely  regret  that  clergymen  who  really  believe  that 
an  infinite  God  is  on  their  side  think  it  necessary  to  resort 
to  such  things  to  defeat  one  man.  According  to  their  idea, 
God  is  against  me,  and  they  ought  to  have  confidence 
enough  in  his  infinite  wisdom  and  strength  to  suppose  that 
he  could  dispose  of  one  man,  even  if  they  failed  to  say  a 
word  against  me.  Had  you  not  asked  me  I  should  have 
said  nothing  upon  these  topics.  Such  charges  cannot  hurt 
me.  I  do  not  believe  it  possible  for  such  men  to  injure 
me.  No  one  believes  what  they  say,  and  the  testimony  of 
such  clergjnnen  against  an  Infidel  is  no  longer  considered 
of  value.  I  believe  it  was  Goethe  who  said,  "  I  always 
know  that  I  am  traveling  when  I  hear  the  dogs  bark." 

Question.  Are  you  going  to  make  a  formal  reply  to  their 
sermons  ? 

Answer,  Not  unless  something  better  is  done  than  has 
been.  Of  course,  I  don't  know  what  another  Sabbath  may 
bring  forth.  I  am  waiting.  But  of  one  thing  I  feel  per- 
fectly assured  ;  that  no  man  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the 
world,  can  account  for  the  fact,  if  we  are  to  be  saved  only 
by  faith  in  Christ,  that  Matthew  forgot  it,  that  Luke  said 
nothing  about  it,  and  that  Mark  never  mentioned  it  except 
in  two  passages  written  by  another  person.  Until  that  is 
answered,  as  one  grave-digger  says  to  the  other  in  "  Ham- 
let," I  shall  say,  *'Ay,  tell  me  that  and  unyoke."  In  the 
meantime  I  wish  to  keep  on  the  best  terms  with  all  parties 
concerned.     I  cannot  see  why  my   forgiving  spirit  fails  to 

gain  their  sincere  praise. — Chicago  Tribune,  September  30,  1880. 


THE  REPUBLICAN  VICTORY. 

Questicnu  Do  you  really  think,  Colonel,  that  the  cx)Untry 
has  just  passed  through  a  crisis  ? 

Afiswer.  Yes;  there  was  a  crisis  and  a  great  one.  The 
question  was  whether  a  Northern  or  Southern  idea  of  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  Federal  Government  was  to  pre- 
vail. The  great  victory  of  yesterday  means  that  the  Rebellion 
was  not  put  down  on  the  field  of  war  alone,  but  that  w^e  have 
conquered  in  the  realm  of  thought.  The  bayonet  has  been 
justified  by  argument.  No  party  can  ever  succeed  in  this 
country  that  even  whispers  **  State  Sovereignty."  That  doc- 
trine has  become  odious.  The  sovereignty  of  the  State 
means  a  Government  without  power,  and  citizens  without 
protection. 

Question.  Can  you  see  any  further  significance  in  the 
present  Republican  victory  other  than  that  the  people  do  not 
wish  to  change  the  general  policy  of  the  present  adminis- 
tration ? 

Answer.  Yes ;  the  people  have  concluded  that  the  lips  of 
America  shall  be  free.  There  never  was  free  speech  at  the 
South,  and  there  never  will  be  until  the  people  of  that  sec- 
tion admit  that  the  Nation  is  superior  to  the  State,  and  that 
all  citizens  have  equal  rights.  I  know  of  hundreds  who 
voted  the  Republican  ticket  because  they  regarded  the  South 
as  hostile  to  free  speech.  The  people  were  satisfied  with  the 
financial  policy  of  the  Republicans,  and  they  feared  a  change. 
The  North  wants  honest  money — gold  and  silver.  The  peo- 
ple are  in  favor  of  honest  votes,  and  they  feared  the  prac- 
tices of  the  Democratic  party.  The  tissue  ballot  and  shot- 
gun policy  made  them  hesitate  to  put  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  South.  Besides,  the  tariff  question  made  thousands  and 
thousands  of  votes.     As  long  as  Europe  has  slave  labor,  and 

(38) 


INTERVIEWS.  39 

wherever  kings  and  priests  rule,  the  laborer  will  be  sub- 
stantially a  slave.  We  must  protect  ourselves.  If  the  world 
were  free,  trade  would  be  free,  and  the  seas  would  be  the 
free  highways  of  the  world.  The  great  objects  of  the  Re- 
publican party  are  to  preserve  all  the  liberty  we  have,  pro- 
tect American  labor,  and  to  make  it  the  undisputed  duty  of 
the  Government  to  protect  every  citizen  at  home  and  abroad. 
The   Republican   party    intends   to   civilize    this  country. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  was  the  main  cause  of  the 
Republican  sweep  ? 

Answer.  The  wisdom  of  the  Republicans  and  the  mis- 
takes ot  the  Democrats.  The  Democratic  party  has  for 
twenty  years  underrated  the  intelligence,  the  patriotism 
and  the  honesty  of  the  American  people.  That  party  has 
always  looked  upon  politics  as  a  trade,  and  success  as  the 
last  act  of  a  cunning  trick.  It  has  had  no  principles,  fixed 
or  otherwise.  It  has  always  been  willing  to  abandon  every- 
thing but  its  prejudices.  It  generally  commences  where  it 
left  off  and  then  goes  backward.  In  this  campaign  English 
was  a  mistake,  Hancock  was  another.  Nothing  could  have 
been  more  incongruous  than  yoking  a  Federal  soldier  with 
a  peace-at-any-price  Democrat.  Neither  could  praise  the 
other  without  slandering  himself,  and  the  blindest  partisan 
could  not  like  them  both.  But,  after  all,  I  regard  the  mili- 
tary record  of  English  as  fully  equal  to  the  views  of  Gen- 
eral Hancock  on  the  tariff.  The  greatest  mistake  that  the 
Democratic  party  made  was  to  suppose  that  a  campaign 
could  be  fought  and  won  by  slander.  The  American  peo- 
ple like  fair  play  and  they  abhor  ignorant  and  absurd  vitu- 
peration. The  continent  knew  that  General  Garfield  waa 
an  honest  man ;  that  he  was  in  the  grandest  sense  a  gentle- 
man ;  that  he  was  patriotic,  profound  and  learned  ;  that  his 
private  life  was  pure  ;  that  his  home  life  was  good  and 
kind  and  true,  and  all  the  charges  made  and  howled  and 
screeched   and   printed  and  sworn   to.  harmed  only  those 


40  INTERVIEWS. 

who  did  the  making  and  the  howling,  the  screeching  and  the 
swearing,  I  never  knew  a  man  in  whose  perfect  integrity 
I  had  more  perfect  confidence,  and  in  less  than  one  year 
even  the  men  who  have  slandered  him  will  agree  with  me. 

Question.  How  about  that  "personal  and  confidential 
letter"  ?   (The  Morey  letter.) 

Answer.  It  was  as  stupid,  as  devilish,  as  basely  bora  as 
godfathered.  It  is  an  exploded  forgery,  and  the  explosion 
leaves  dead  and  torn  upon  the  field  the  author  and  his 
witnesses. 

Qtiesiion.  Is  there  anything  in  the  charge  that  the  Re- 
publican party  seeks  to  change  our  form  of  government  by 
graudual  centralization  ? 

Answers  Nothing  whatever.  We  want  power  enough  in 
the  Government  to  protect,  not  to  destroy,  the  liberties  of 
the  people.  The  history  of  the  world  shows  that  burglars 
have  always  opposed  an  increase  of  the  police. — Nem  York 

Herald^  November  5,  1880. 

INGERSOLL  AND  BEECHER.* 

Qtiestion.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Mr.  Beecher? 

Answer.  I  regard  him  as  the  greatest  man  in  any  pulpit 
of  the  world.  He  treated  me  with  a  generosity  that  noth- 
ing can  exceed.     He  rose  grandly  above  the  prejudices 

•  The  sensation  created  by  the  speech  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  at  the  Acad- 
emy of  Music,  in  Brooklyn,  when  he  uttered  a  brilliant  eulogy  on  Col.  Roberta. 
IngersoU  and  publicly  shook  hands  with  him  has  not  yet  subsided.  A  portion  of 
the  religious  world  is  thoroughly  stirred  up  at  what  it  considers  a  gross  breach  of 
orthodox  propriety.  This  feeling  is  especially  strong  among  the  class  of  positivists 
who  believe  that        n.      »^^  •^,   , 

"An  Atheist's  laugh's  a  poor  exchange 
For  Deity  offended." 

Many  believe  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  at  heart  in  full  sympathy  and  accord  with 
Ingersoir  s  teachings,  but  has  not  courage  enough  to  say  so  at  the  sacrifice  of  his  pas- 
toral position.  The  fact  that  these  two  men  are  the  very  head  and  front  of  their 
lespective  schools  of  thought  makes  the  matter  an  important  one.  The  denounce- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  followed  by  the  scene  at  the  Academy, 
haa  about  it  an  aroma  of  suggestiveness  that  might  work  much  harm  without  an 
explanation.  Since  Colonel  Ingersoir  s  recent  attack  upon  X\i^person?telolVi\^c\Q.rgy 
ttirough  the  ' '  Shorter  Catechism ' '  the  pulpit  has  been  remarkably  silent  regarding 
the  great  atheist.  "  Is  the  keen  logic  and  broad  humanity  of  Ingersoll  converting 
the  brain  and  heart  of  Christendom  ?"  was  recently  asked.  Did  the  hand  that  was 
Btretched  out  to  him  on  the  stage  of  the  Academy  reach  across  tfae  chasm  which 
separates  orthodoxy  from  infidelity? 

Desiring  to  answer  the  last  question  if  possible,  a  Herald  reporter  visited  Mr. 
Beecher  and  Colonel  Ins^ersoll  to  learn  their  opinion  of  each  otiiec.  Neither  of  the 
gentlemen  was  aware  that  the  other  was  being  interviewed. 


INTERVIEWS.  41 

supposed  to  belong  to  his  class,  and  acted  as  only  a  man 
could  act  without  a  chain  upon  his  brain  and  only  kindness 
in  his  heart. 

I  told  him  that  night  that  I  congratulated  the  world  that 
it  had  a  minister  with  an  intellectual  horizon  broad  enough 
and  a  mental  sky  studded  with  stars  of  genius  enough  to 
hold  all  creeds  in  scorn  that  shocked  the  heart  of  man.  I 
think  that  Mr,  Beecher  has  liberalized  the  English-speaking 
people  of  the  world. 

I  do  not  think  he  agrees  with  me.  He  holds  to  many 
things  that  I  most  passionately  deny.  But  in  common,  we 
believe  in  the  liberty  of  thought. 

My  principal  objections  to  orthodox  religion  are  two — 
slavery  here  and  hell  hereafter.  I  do  not  believe  that  Mr. 
Beecher  on  these  points  can  disagree  with  me.  The  real 
difference  between  us  is — he  says  God,  I  say  Nature.  The 
real  agreement  between  us  is — we  both  say — Liberty. 

Question.  What  is  his  forte  ? 

Answer.  He  is  of  a  wonderfully  poetic  temperament.  In 
pursuing  any  course  of  thought  his  mind  is  like  a  stream 
flowing  through  the  scenery  of  fairyland.  The  stream  mur- 
murs and  laughs  while  the  banks  grow  gpreen  and  the  vines 
blossom. 

His  brain  is  controlled  by  his  heart.  He  thinks  in 
pictures.  With  him  logic  means  mental  melody.  The  dis- 
cordant is  the  absurd. 

For  years  he  has  endeavored  to  hide  the  dungeon  of 
orthodoxy  with  the  ivy  of  imagination.  Now  and  then  he 
pulls  for  a  moment  the  leafy  curtain  aside  and  is  horrified 
to  see  the  lizards,  snakes,  basilisks  and  abnormal  monsters 
of  the  orthodox  age,  and  then  he  utters  a  great  cry,  the 
protest  of  a  loving,  throbbing  heart. 

He  is  a  great  thinker,  a  marvelous  orator,  and,  in  my 
judgment,  greater  and  grander  than  any  creed  of  any 
church. 


42  INTERVIEWS. 

Besides  all  this,  he  treated  me  like  a  king.  Manhood  is 
his  forte,  and  I  expect  to  live  and  die  his  friend. 

Beecher  on  INGERSOLL. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Colonel  Ingersoll  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  there  should  be  any  misconception  as  to  my 
motive  for  mdorsing  Mr.  Ingersoll.  I  never  saw  him  before  that 
night,  when  i  clasped  his  hand  in  the  presence  of  an  assemblage  oi 
citizens.     Yet  I  regard  him  as  one  of  the  greatest  men  of  this  age. 

Question.  Is  his  influence  upon  the  world  good  or  otherwise? 

Answer.  I  am  an  ordained  clergyman  and  believe  in  revealed  re- 
ligion. I  am,  therefore,  bound  to  regard  all  persons  who  do  not 
believe  in  revealed  religion  as  in  error.  But  on  the  broad  platform  of 
human  liberty  and  progress  I  was  bound  to  give  him  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship.  I  would  do  it  a  thousand  times  over.  I  do  not 
know  Colonel  Ingersoll's  religious  views  precisely,  but  I  have  a 
general  knowledge  of  them.  He  has  the  same  right  to  free  thought 
and  free  speech  that  I  have.  I  am  not  that  kind  of  a  cowa-d  who  has 
to  kick  a  man  before  he  shakes  hands  with  him.  If  I  did  so  I  would 
have  to  kick  the  Methodists,  Roman  Catholics  and  all  other  creeds. 
I  will  not  pitch  into  any  man's  religion  as  an  excuse  for  giving  him 
my  hand  I  admire  Ingersoll  because  he  is  not  afraid  to  speak  what 
he  honestly  thinks,  and  I  am  only  sorry  that  he  does  not  think  as  I 
do.  I  never  heard  so  much  brilliancy  and  pith  put  into  a  two  hours' 
speech  as  I  did  on  that  night.  I  wish  my  whole  congregation  had 
been  there  to  hear  it.  I  regret  that  there  are  not  more  men  like  In- 
gersoll interested  in  the  affairs  of  the  nation.  I  do  not  wish  to  be 
understood  as  indorsing  skepticism  in  any  form. — New  York  Heraid, 
November  7,  1880. 

POLITICAL. 

Question.  Is  it  true,  as  rumored,  that  you  intend  to  leave 
Washington  and  reside  in  New  York  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  expect  to  remain  here  for  years  to  come, 
so  far  as  I  can  now  see.  My  present  intention  is  certainly 
to  stay  here  during  the  coming  winter. 

Question.  Is  this  because  you  regard  Washington  as  the 
pleasantest  and  most  advantageous  city  for  a  residence  ? 

Answer.  Well,  in  the  first  place,  I  dislike  to  move.  In 
the  next  place,  the  climate  is  good.  In  the  third  place,  the 
political   atmosphere  has  been  growing  better  of  late,  and 


INTERVIEWS.  43 

when  you  considef  that  I  avoid  one  dislike  and  reap  the 
benefits  of  two  likes,  you  can  see  why  I  remain. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  moral  atmosphere  will 
improve  with  the  political  atmosphere? 

Answer.  I  would  hate  to  say  that  this  city  is  capable  ol 
any  improvement  in  the  way  of  morality.  We  have  a  great 
many  churches,  a  great  many  ministers,  and,  I  believe, 
some  retired  chaplains,  so  I  take  it  that  the  moral  tone  oi 
the  place  could  hardly  be  bettered.  One  majority  in  the 
Senate  might  help  it.  Seriously,  however,  I  think  that 
Washington  has  as  high  a  standard  of  morality  as  any  city 
in  the  Union.  And  it  is  one  of  the  best  towns  vn  which  to 
loan  money  without  collateral  in  the  world. 

Question.  Do  you  know  from  experience? 

Answer.  This  I  have  been  told  [was  the  solemn  answer.] 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  political  features  of  the 
incoming  administration  will  differ  from  the  present  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  I  have  no  right  to  speak  for  General 
Garfield.  I  believe  his  administration  will  be  Republican, 
at  the  same  time  perfectly  kind,  manly,  and  generous.  He 
is  a  man  to  harbor  no  resentment.  He  knows  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  statesmanship  to  remove  causes  of  irritation  rather 
than  punish  the  irritated. 

Question.  Do  I  understand  you  to  imply  that  there  will  ba 
a  neutral  policy,  as  it  were,  towards  the  South? 

Answer.  No,  I  think  there  will  be  nothing  neutral  about 
it.  I  think  that  the  next  administration  will  be  one- 
sided— that  is,  it  will  be  on  the  right  side.  I  know  of  no 
better  definition  for  a  compromise  than  to  say  it  is  a  pro- 
ceeding in  which  hypocrites  deceive  each  other.  I  do  not 
believe  that  the  incoming  administration  will  be  neutral  in 
anything.  The  American  people  do  not  like  neutrality. 
They  would  rather  a  man  were  on  the  wrong  side  than  on 
neither.  And,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  no  paper  so  utterly 
unfair,  malicious  and  devilish,   as  one   that  claims  to  be 


44  INTERVIEWS. 

neutral.  No  politician  is  as  bitter  as  a  neutral  politician. 
Neutrality  is  generally  used  as  a  mask  to  hide  unusual  bit- 
terness. Sometimes  it  hides  what  it  is — nothing.  It  always 
stands  for  hollowness  of  head  or  bitterness  of  heart,  some- 
times for  both.  My  idea  is — and  that  is  the  only  reason  I 
have  the  right  to  express  it — that  General  Garfield  believes 
in  the  platform  adopted  by  the  Republican  party.  He 
believes  in  free  speech,  in  honest  money,  in  divorce  of 
church  and  state,  and  he  believes  in  the  protection  of 
American  citizens  by  the  Federal  Government  wherever  the 
flag  flies.  He  believes  that  the  Federal  Government  is  as 
much  bound  to  protect  the  citizen  at  home  as  abroad,  I 
believe  he  will  do  the  very  best  he  can  to  carry  these  great 
ideas  into  execution  and  make  them  living  realities  in  the 
United  States.  Personally,  I  have  no  hatred  toward  the 
Southern  people.  I  have  no  hatred  toward  any  class.  I 
hate  tyranny,  no  matter  whether  it  is  South  or  North ;  I  hate 
hypocrisy,  and  I  hate  above  all  things,  the  spirit  of  caste. 
If  the  Southern  people  could  only  see  that  they  gained  as 
great  a  victory  in  the  Rebellion  as  the  North  did,  and  some 
day  they  will  see  it,  the  whole  question  would  be  settled. 
The  South  has  reaped  a  far  greater  benefit  from  being  de- 
feated than  the  North  has  from  being  successful,  and  I 
believe  some  day  the  South  will  be  great  enough  to  appre- 
ciate that  fact.  I  have  always  insisted  that  to  be  beaten  by 
the  right  is  to  be  a  victor.  The  Southern  people  must  get 
over  the  idea  that  they  are  insulted  simply  because  the^^  are 
out-voted,  and  they  ought  by  this  time  to  know  that  the 
Republicans  of  the  North,  not  only  do  not  wish  them  harm, 
but  really  wish  them  the  utmost  success. 

Question.  But  has  the  Republican  party  all  the  good  and 
the  Democratic  all  the  bad  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  do  not  think  that  the  Republican  party  has 
all  the  good,  nor  do  I  pretend  that  the  Democratic  party  has 
all  the  bad ;  though  I  may  say  that  each  party  comes  pretty 


INTERVIEWS.  45 

near  it.  I  admit  that  there  are  thousands  of  really  good  fel- 
lows in  the  Democratic  party,  and  there  are  some  pretty  bad 
people  in  the  Republican  party.  But  I  honestly  believe  that 
within  the  latter  are  most  of  the  progressive  men  of  this 
country.  That  party  has  in  it  the  elements  of  growth.  It 
is  full  of  hope.  It  anticipates.  The  Democratic  party  re- 
members. It  is  always  talking  about  the  past.  It  is  the 
possessor  of  a  vast  amount  of  political  rubbish,  and  I  reall}^ 
believe  it  has  outlived  its  usefulness.  I  firmly  believe  that 
your  editor,  Mr.  Hutchins,  could  start  a  better  organization, 
if  he  would  only  turn  his  attention  to  it.  Just  think  for  a 
moment  of  the  number  you  could  get  rid  of  by  starting  a 
new  party.  A  hundred  names  will  probably  suggest  them- 
selves to  any  intelligent  Democrat,  the  loss  of  which  would 
almost  insure  success.  Some  one  has  said  that  a  tailor  in 
Boston  made  a  fortune  by  advertising  that  he  did  not  cut  the 
breeches  of  Webster's  statue.  A  new  party  by  advertising 
that  certain  men  would  not  belong  to  it,  would  have  an  ad- 
vantage in  the  next  race. 

Qiiestio7i.  What,  in  your  opinion,  were  the  causes  which 
led  to  the  Democratic  defeat  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  nomination  of  English  was  exceed- 
ingly unfortunate.  Indiana,  being  an  October  State,  the 
best  man  in  that  State  should  have  been  nominated  either  for 
President  or  Vice-President.  Personally,  I  know  nothing  of 
Mr.  English,  but  I  have  the  right  to  say  that  he  was  exceed- 
ingly unpopular.  That  was  mistake  number  one.  Mistake 
number  two  was  putting  a  plank  in  the  platform  insisting 
upon  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  That  little  word  ""  only  " 
was  one  of  the  most  frightful  mistakes  ever  made  by  a 
political  party.  That  little  word  "only "  was  a  millstone 
around  the  neck  of  the  entire  campaign.  The  third  mistake 
was  Hancock's  definition  of  the  tariff.  It  was  exceedingly 
unfortunate,  exceedingly  laughable,  and  came  just  in  the 
nick  of  time.     The  fourth  mistake  was  the  speech  of  Wade 


46  INTERVIEWS. 

Hampton,  I  mean  the  speech  that  the  Republican  papers 
claim  he  made.  Of  course  I  do  not  know,  personally, 
whether  it  was  made  or  not.  If  made,  it  was  a  great  mis- 
take. Mistake  number  five  was  made  in  Alabama,  where 
they  refused  to  allow  a  Greenbacker  to  express  his  opinion. 
That  lost  the  Democrats  enough  Greenbackers  to  turn  the 
scale  in  Maine,  and  enough  in  Indiana  to  change  that  elec- 
tion. Mistake  number  six  was  in  the  charges  made  against 
General  Garfield.  They  were  insisted  upon,  magnified  and 
multiplied  until  at  last  the  whole  thing  assumed  the  propor- 
tions of  a  malicious  libel.  This  was  a  great  mistake,  for  the 
reason  that  a  number  of  Democrats  in  the  United  States 
had  most  heartily  and  cordially  indorsed  General  Garfield 
as  a  man  of  integrity  and  great  ability.  Such  indorsements 
had  been  made  by  the  leading  Democrats  of  the  North  and 
South,  among  them  Governor  Hendricks  and  many  others 
I  might  name.  Jere  Black  had  also  certified  to  the  integrity 
and  intellectual  grandeur  of  General  Garfield,  and  when 
afterward  he  certified  to  the  exact  contrary,  the  people  be- 
lieved that  it  was  a  persecution.  The  next  mistake,  num- 
ber seven,  was  the  Chinese  letter.  While  it  lost  Garfield 
California,  Nevada  and  probably  New  Jersey,  it  did  him 
good  in  New  York.  This  letter  was  the  greatest  mistake 
made,  because  a  crime  is  greater  than  a  mistake.  These,  in 
my  judgment,  are  the  principal  mistakes  made  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party  in  the  campaign.  Had  McDonald  been  on  the 
ticket  the  result  might  have  been  different,  or  had  the  party 
united  on  some  man  in  New  York,  satisfactory  to  the  fac- 
tions, it  might  have  succeeded.  The  truth,  however,  is  that 
the  North  to-day  is  Republican,  and  it  may  be  that  had  the 
Democratic  party  made  no  mistakes  whatever  the  result 
would  have  been  the  same.  But  that  mistakes  were  made 
is  now  perfectly  evident  to  the  blindest  partisan.  If  the 
ticket  originally  suggested,  Seymour  and  McDonald,  had 
been  nominated  on  an  unobjectionable  platform,  the  result 


INTERVIEWS.  47 

might  liave  been  different.  One  of  the  happiest  days  in  my 
life  was  the  day  on  which  the  Cincinnati  convention  did  not 
nominate  Seymour  and  did  nominate  English.  I  regard 
General  Hancock  as  a  good  soldier,  but  not  particularly  well 
qualified  to  act  as  President.  He  has  neither  the  intellectual 
training  nor  the  experience  to  qualify  him  for  that  place. 

Question.  You  have  doubtless  heard  of  a  new  party, 
Colonel.     What  is  your  idea  in  regard  to  it  ? 

Answer.  I  have  heard  two  or  three  speak  of  a  new  party 
to  be  called  the  National  party,  or  National  Union  party, 
but  whether  there  is  anything  in  such  a  movement  I  have 
no  means  of  knowing.  Any  party  in  opposition  to  the 
Republican,  no  matter  what  it  may  be  called,  must  win  on 
a  new  issue,  and  that  new  issue  will  determine  the  new 
party.  Parties  cannot  be  made  to  order.  They  must  grow. 
They  are  the  natural  offspring  of  national  events.  They 
must  embody  certain  hopes,  they  must  gratify,  or  promise 
to  gratify,  the  feelings  of  a  vast  number  of  people.  No 
man  can  make  a  party,  and  if  a  new  part}^  springs  into  ex- 
istence it  will  not  be  brought  forth  to  gratify  the  wishes  of 
a  few,  but  the  wants  of  the  many.  It  has  seemed  to  me 
for  years  that  the  Democratic  party  carried  too  great  a  load 
in  the  shape  of  record  ;  that  its  autobiography  was  nearly 
killing  it  all  the  time,  and  that  if  it  could  die  just  long 
enough  to  assume  another  form  at  the  resurrection,  just  long 
enough  to  leave  a  grave  stone  to  mark  the  end  of  its  his- 
tory, to  get  a  cemeter}^  back  of  it,  that  it  might  hope  for 
something  like  success.  In  other  words,  that  there  must 
be  a  funeral  before  there  can  be  victory.  Most  of  its  leaders 
are  worn  out.  They  have  become  so  accustomed  to  defeat 
that  they  take  it  as  a  matter  of  course ;  they  expect  it  in 
the  beginning  and  seem  unconsciously  to  work  for  it. 
There  must  be  some  new  ideas,  and  this  only  can  happen 
when  the  party  as  such  has  b^en  gathered  to  its  fathers, 
I  do  not  think  that  the  advice  of  Senator  Hill  will  be  fol- 


48  INTERVIEWS. 

lowed.  He  is  willing  to  kill  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
South  if  we  will  kill  the  Republican  party  in  the  North, 
This  puts  me  in  mind  of  what  the  rooster  said  to  the  horse  : 
"Let  us  agree  not  to  step  on  each  other's  feet." 

Question.  Your  views  of  the  country's  future  and  pros- 
pects must  naturally  be  rose  colored  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  I  look  at  things  through  Republican 
eyes  and  may  be  prejudiced  without  knowing  it.  But  it 
really  seems  to  me  that  the  future  is  full  of  great  promise. 
The  South,  after  all,  is  growing  prosperous.  It  is  produc- 
ing more  and  more  every  year,  until  in  time  it  will  become 
wealthy.  The  West  is  growing  almost  beyond  the  imag- 
ination of  a  speculator,  and  the  Eastern  and  Middle  States 
are  much  more  than  holding  their  own.  We  have  now 
fifty  millions  of  people  and  in  a  few  years  will  have  a  hun- 
dred. That  we  are  a  Nation  I  think  is  now  settled.  Our 
gTowth  will  be  unparalleled.  I  myself  expect  to  live  to  see 
as  many  ships  on  the  Pacific  as  on  the  Atlantic.  In  a  few 
years  there  will  probably  be  ten  millions  of  people  liv- 
ing along  the  Rocky  and  Sierra  Mountains.  It  will  not  be 
long  until  Illinois  will  find  her  market  west  of  her.  In 
fifty  years  this  will  be  the  greatest  nation  on  the  earth, 
and  the  most  populous  in  the  civilized  world,  China  is 
slowly  awakening  from  the  lethargy  of  centuries.  It  will  soon 
have  the  wants  of  Europe,  and  America  will  supply  those 
wants.  This  is  a  nation  of  inventors  and  there  is  more 
mechanical  ingenuity  in  the  United  States  than  on  the  rest 
of  the  globe.  In  my  judgment  this  country  will  in  a  short 
time  add  to  its  customers  hundreds  of  millions  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Celestial  Empire.  So  you  see,  to  me,  the  future 
is  exceedingly  bright.  And  besides  all  this,  I  must  not 
forget  the  thing  that  is  always  nearest  my  heart.  There  is 
more  intellectual  liberty  in  the  United  States  to-day  than 
ever  before.  The  people  are  beginning  to  see  that  every 
citizen  ought  to  have  the  right  to  express  himself  freely 


INTERVIEWS.  49 

Upon  every  possible  subject.  In  a  little  while,  all  the  bar- 
barous laws  that  now  disgrace  the  statute  books  of  the 
Stales  by  discriminating  against  a  man  simply  because  he 
is  honest,  will  be  repealed,  and  there  will  be  one  country 
where  all  citizens  will  have  and  enjoy  not  onl)^  equal  rights, 
but  all  rights.  Nothing  gratifies  me  so  much  as  the  growth 
of  intellectual  liberty.  After  all,  the  true  civilization  is 
where  every  man  gives  to  every  other,  every  right  that  he 

claims  for  himself. —  The  i'oj^/,  Washington,  D.  C,  November  14,  1880. 

RELIGION  IN  POLITICS. 

Question.  How  do  you  regard  the  present  political  situ- 
ation ? 

Answer.  My  opinion  is  that  the  ideas  the  North  fought 
for  upon  the  neld  have  at  last  triumphed  at  the  ballot-box. 
For  several  years  after  the  Rebellion  was  put  down  the 
Southern  ideas  traveled  North.  We  lost  West  Virginia, 
New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  New  York  and  a  great  many 
congressional  districts  in  other  States.  We  lost  both 
houses  of  Congress  and  every  Southern  State.  The  South- 
ern ideas  reached  their  climax  in  1876.  In  my  judgment 
the  tide  has  turned,  and  hereafter  the  Northern  idea  is  go- 
ing South.  The  young  men  are  on  the  Republican  side. 
The  old  Democrats  are  dying.  The  cradle  is  beating  the 
coffin.  It  is  a  case  of  life  and  death,  and  life  is  ahead. 
The  heirs  outnumber  the  administrators. 

Question.   What  kind  of  a  President  will  Garfield  make  ? 

Answer.  My  opinion  is  that  he  will  make  as  good  a 
President  as  this  nation  ever  had.  He  is  fully  equipped. 
He  is  a  trained  statesman.  He  has  discussed  all  the  great 
questions  that  have  arisen  for  the  last  eighteen  years,  and 
with  great  ability.  He  is  a  thorough  scholar,  a  conscien- 
tious student,  and  takes  an  exceedingly  comprehensive  sur- 
vey of  all  questions.  He  is  genial,  generous  and  candid, 
and  has  all  the  necessary  qualities  of  heart  and  brain  to 


50  INTERVIEWS, 

make  a  great  PrCvSident.  He  has  no  prejudices.  Prejudice 
is  the  child  and  flatterer  of  ignorance.  He  is  firm,  but  not 
obstinate.  The  obstinate  man  wants  his  own  way  ;  the 
firm  man  stands  by  the  right.  Andrew  Johnson  was  ob- 
stinate— Lincoln  was  firm. 

Question.  How  do  you  think  he  will  treat  the  South  ? 

A?iswer.  Just  the  same  as  the  North.  He  will  be  the 
President  of  the  whole  country.  He  will  not  execute  the 
laws  by  the  compass,  but  according  to  the  Constitution,  I 
do  not  speak  for  General  Garfield,  nor  by  any  authority 
from  his  friends.  No  one  wishes  to  injure  the  South.  The 
Republican  party  feels  in  honor  bound  to  protect  all  citizens, 
white  and  black.  It  must  do  this  in  order  to  keep  its  self- 
respect.  It  must  throw  the  shield  of  the  Nation  over  the 
weakest,  the  humblest  and  the  blackest  citizen.  Any  other 
course  is  suicide.  No  thoughtful  Southern  man  can  object 
to  this,  and  a  Northern  Democrat  knows  that  it  is  right. 

Question.  Is  there  a  probability  that  Mr.  Sherman  will  be 
retained  in  the  Cabinet  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  knowledge  upon  that  question,  and 
consequently  have  nothing  to  say.  My  opinion  about  the 
Cabinet  is,  that  General  Garfield  is  well  enough  acquainted 
with  public  men  to  choose  a  Cabinet  that  will  suit  him  and 
the  country.  I  have  never  regarded  it  as  the  proper  thing 
to  try  and  force  a  Cabinet  upon  a  President.  He  has  the 
right  to  be  surrounded  by  his  friends,  by  men  in  whose 
judgment  and  in  whose  friendship  he  has  the  utmost  con- 
fidence, and  I  would  no  more  think  of  trying  to  put  some 
man  in  the  Cabinet  than  I  would  think  of  signing  a  petition 
that  a  man  should  marry  a  certain  woman.  General  Gar- 
field will,  I  believe,  select  his  own  constitutional  advisers, 
and  he  will  take  the  best  he  knows. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  condition  of  the 
Democratic  party  at  present  ? 

Answer.  It  must  get  a  new  set  of  principles,  and   throw 


INTERVIEWS.  51 

away  its  prejudices.  It  must  demonstrate  its  capacity  to 
govern  the  country  by  governing  the  States  where  it  is  in 
power.  In  the  presence  of  rebellion  it  gave  up  the  ship.  The 
South  must  become  Republican  before  the  North  will  will- 
ingly give  it  power ;  that  is,  the  great  ideas  of  nationality 
and  Federal  protection  must  be  absolutely  accepted.  Ideas 
are  greater  than  parties,  and  if  our  flag  is  not  large  enough 
to  protect  every  citizen,  we  must  add  a  few  more  stars  and 
stripes.  Personally  I  have  no  hatreds  in  this  matter.  The 
present  is  not  only  the  child  of  the  past,  but  the  necessary 
child.  A  statesman  must  deal  with  things  as  they  are. 
He  must  not  be  like  Gladstone,  who  divides  his  time  between 
foreign  wars  and  amendments  to  the  English  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer. 

Question,  How  do  you  regard  the  religious  question  in 
politics  ? 

Answer.  Religion  is  a  personal  matter — a  matter  that 
each  individual  soul  should  be  allowed  to  settle  for  itself. 
No  man  shod  in  the  brogans  of  impudence  should  walk  into 
the  temple  of  another's  soul.  While  every  man  should  be 
governed  by  the  highest  possible  considerations  of  the  pub- 
lic weal,  no  one  has  the  right  to  ask  for  legal  assistance  in 
the  support  of  his  particular  sect.  If  Catholics  oppose  the 
public  schools  I  would  not  oppose  them  because  they  are 
Catholics,  but  because  I  am  in  favor  of  the  schools.  I  re- 
gard the  public  school  as  the  intellectual  bread  of  life. 
Personally  I  have  no  confidence  in  any  religion  that  can  be 
demonstrated  only  to  children.  I  suspect  all  creeds  that 
rely  implicitly  on  mothers  and  nurses.  That  religion  is  the 
best  that  commends  itself  the  strongest  to  men  and  women  of 
education  and  genius.  After  all,  the  prejudices  of  infancy  and 
the  ignorance  of  the  aged  are  a  poor  foundation  for  any  system 
of  morals  or  faith.  I  respect  every  honest  man,  and  I  think 
more  of  a  liberal  Catholic  than  of  an  illiberal  Infidel.  The 
religious  question  should  be  left  out  of  politics.     You  might 


52  INTERVIEWS, 

as  well  decide  questions  of  art  and  music  by  a  ward  caucus 
as  to  govern  the  longings  and  dreams  of  the  soul  by  law.  I 
believe  in  letting  the  sun  shine  whether  the  weeds  grow  or 
not  I  can  never  side  with  Protestants  if  they  try  to  put 
Catholics  down  by  law,  and  I  expect  to  oppose  both  of  theiF 
until  religious  intolerance  is  regarded  as  a  crime. 

Question.  Is  the  religious  movement  of  which  you  are  the 
chief  exponent  spreading  ? 

Answer.  There  are  ten  times  as  many  Freethinkers  this 
year  as  there  were  last.  Civilization  is  the  child  of  free 
thought.  The  new  world  has  drifted  away  from  the  rotting 
wharf  of  superstition.  The  politics  of  this  country  are  be- 
ing settled  by  the  new  ideas  of  individual  liberty;  and 
parties  and  churches  that  cannot  accept  the  new  truths  must 
perish.  I  want  it  perfectly  understood  that  I  am  not  a  poli- 
tician. I  believe  in  liberty  and  I  want  to  see  the  time 
when  every  man,  woman  and  child  will  enjoy  every  human 
right. 

The  election  is  over,  the  passions  aroused  by  the  campaign 
will  soon  subside,  the  sober  judgment  of  the  people  will,  in 
my  opinion,  indorse  the  result,  and  time  will  indorse  the  in- 
dorsement.—  The  Evening  Express,  New  York  City,  November  19,  1880. 

MIRACLES   AND   IMMORTALITY. 

Question.  You  have  seen  some  accounts  of  the  recent  ser- 
mon of  Dr.  Tyng  on  "Miracles,"  I  presume,  and  if  so,  what 
is  your  opinion  of  the  sermon,  and  also  what  is  your  opinion 
of  miracles  ? 

Answer.  From  an  orthodox  standpoint,  I  think  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Tyng  is  right.  If  miracles  were  necessary  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago,  before  scientific  facts  enough  were  known 
to  overthrow  hundreds  and  thousands  of  passages  in  the 
Bible,  certainly  they  are  necessary  now.  Dr.  Tyng  sees 
clearly  that  the  old  miracles  are  nearly  worn  out,  and  that 
some  new  ones  are  absolutely  essential.      He  takes  for 


INTERVIEWS.  53 

granted  that,  if  God  would  do  a  miracle  to  found  his  gospel, 
he  certainly  would  do  some  more  to  preserve  it,  and  that  it 
is  in  need  of  preservation  about  now  is  evident.  I  am 
amazed  that  the  religious  world  should  laugh  at  him  for 
believing  in  miracles.  It  seems  to  me  just  as  reasonable 
that  the  deaf,  dumb,  blind  and  lame,  should  be  cured  at 
Lourdes  as  at  Palestine.  It  certainly  is  no  more  wonderful 
that  the  law  of  nature  should  be  broken  now  than  that  it 
was  broken  several  thousand  years  ago.  Dr.  Tjmg  also  has 
this  advantage.  The  witnesses  by  whom  he  proves  these 
miracles  are  alive.  An  unbeliever  can  have  the  opportunity 
of  a  cross-examination.  Whereas,  the  miracles  in  the  New 
Testament  are  substantiated  only  by  the  dead.  It  is  just  as 
reasonable  to  me  that  blind  people  receive  their  sight  in 
France  as  that  devils  were  made  to  vacate  human  bodies  in 
the  holy  land. 

For  one  I  am  exceedingly  glad  that  Dr.  Tyng  has  taken 
this  position.  It  shows  that  he  is  a  believer  in  a  personal 
God,  in  a  God  who  is  attending  a  little  to  the  affairs  of  this 
world,  and  in  a  God  who  did  not  exhaust  his  supplies  in  the 
apostolic  age.  It  is  refreshing  to  me  to  find  in  this  scientific 
age  a  gentleman  who  still  believes  in  miracles.  My  opinion 
is  that  all  thorough  religionists  will  have  to  take  the  ground 
and  admit  that  a  supernatural  religion  must  be  super- 
naturally  preserv^ed. 

I  have  been  asking  for  a  miracle  for  several  years,  and 
have  in  a  very  mild,  gentle  and  loving  way,  taunted  the 
church  for  not  producing  a  little  one.  I  have  had  the  im- 
pudence to  ask  any  number  of  them  to  join  in  a  prayer 
asking  anything  they  desire  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the 
efficiency  of  what  is  known  as  supplication.  They  answer 
me  by  calling  my  attention  to  the  miracles  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament.  I  insist,  however,  on  a  new  miracle,  and, 
personally,  I  would  like  to  see  one  now.  Certainly^  the 
Infinite  has  not  lost  his   power,  and  certainly  the  Infinite 


54  INTERVIEWS. 

knows  that  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands,  if  the 
Bible  is  true,  are  now  pouring  over  the  precipice  of  unbelief 
into  the  gulf  of  hell.  One  little  miracle  would  save  thou- 
sands. One  little  miracle  in  Pittsburg,  well  authenticated, 
would  do  more  good  than  all  the  preaching  ever  heard  in  this 
sooty  town.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng  clearly  sees  this,  and  he 
has  been  driven  to  the  conclusion,  first,  that  God  can  do 
miracles;  second,  that  he  ought  to,  third,  that  he  has.  In 
this  he  is  perfectly  logical.  After  a  man  believes  the  Bible ; 
after  he  believes  in  the  flood  and  in  the  story  of  Jonah,  cer- 
tainly he  ought  not  to  hesitate  at  a  miracle  of  to-day.  When 
I  say  I  want  a  miracle,  I  mean  by  that,  I  want  a  good  one. 
All  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  could  have 
been  simulated.  A  fellow  could  have  pretended  to  be  dead, 
or  blind,  or  dumb,  or  deaf.  I  want  to  see  a  good  miracle. 
I  want  to  see  a  man  with  one  leg,  and  then  I  want  to  see  the 
other  leg  grow  out. 

I  would  like  to  see  a  miracle  like  that  performed  in  North 
Carolina.  Two  men  were  disputing  about  the  relative  merits 
of  the  salve  they  had  for  sale.  One  of  the  men,  in  order  to 
demonstrate  that  his  salve  was  better  than  any  other,  cut  off 
a  dog's  tail  and  applied  a  little  of  the  salve  to  the  stump, 
and,  in  the  presence  of  the  spectators,  a  new  tail  grew  out. 
But  the  other  man,  who  also  had  salve  for  sale,  took  up  the 
piece  of  tail  that  had  been  cast  away,  put  a  little  salve  at 
the  end  of  that,  and  a  new  dog  grew  out,  and  the  last  heard 
of  those  parties  they  were  quarrelling  as  to  who  owned  the 
second  dog.     Something  like  that  is  what  I  call  a  miracle. 

Question.  What  do  you  believe  about  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  ?  Do  you  believe  that  the  spirit  lives  as  an  indi- 
vidual after  the  body  is  dead  ? 

Answer.  I  have  said  a  great  many  times  that  it  is  no  more 
wonderful  that  we  should  live  again  than  that  we  do  live. 
Sometimes  I  have  thought  it  not  quite  so  wonderful  for  the 
reason  that  we  have  a  start.     But  upon  that  subject  I  have  not 


INTERVIEWS.  55 

the  slightest  information.  Whether  man  lives  again  or  not 
I  cannot  pretend  to  say.  There  may  be  another  world  and 
there  may  not  be.  If  there  is  another  world  we  ought  to 
make  the  best  of  it  after  arriving  there.  If  there  is  not  an- 
other world,  or  if  there  is  another  world,  we  ought  to  make 
the  best  of  this.  And  since  nobody  knows,  all  should  be 
permitted  to  have  their  opinions,  and  my  opinion  is  that 
nobody  knows. 

If  we  take  the  Old  Testament  for  authority,  man  is  not 
immortal.  The  Old  Testament  shows  man  how  he  lost  im- 
mortality. According  to  Genesis,  God  prevented  man  from 
putting  forth  his  hand  and  eating  of  the  Tree  of  Life.  It  is 
there  stated,  had  he  succeeded,  man  would  have  lived  for- 
ever. God  drove  him  from  the  garden,  preventing  him  eat- 
ing of  this  tree,  and  in  consequence  man  became  mortal ;  so 
that  if  we  go  by  the  Old  Testament  we  are  compelled  to  give 
up  immortality.  The  New  Testament  has  but  little  on  the 
subject.  In  one  place  we  are  told  to  seek  for  immortality. 
If  we  are  already  immortal,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  we  should 
go  on  seeking  for  it.  In  another  place  we  are  told  that  they 
who  are  worthy  to  obtain  that  world  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  are  not  given  in  marriage.  From  this  one  would 
infer  there  would  be  some  unworthy  to  be  raised  from  the 
dead.  Upon  the  question  of  immortality,  the  Old  Testament 
throws  but  little  satisfactory  light.  I  do  not  deny  immor- 
tality, nor  would  I  endeavor  to  shake  the  belief  of  anybody 
in  another  life.  What  I  am  endeavoring  to  do  is  to  put  out 
the  fires  of  hell.  If  we  cannot  have  heaven  without  hell.  1 
am  in  favor  of  abolishing  heaven.  I  do  not  want  to  go  ir; 
heaven  if  one  soul  is  doomed  to  agony.  I  would  rather  be 
annihilated. 

My  opinion  of  immortality  is  this  : 

First. — I  live,  and  that  of  itself  is  infinitely  wonderful. 
Second. — There  was  a  time  when  I  was  not,  and  after  I  was 
not,!  was.     'Ihird. — Now  that  I  am,  I  may  be  again  ;  and  it 


56  INTERVIEWS. 

5s  no  more  wonderful  that  I  may  be  again,  if  I  have  been, 
than  that  I  am,  having  once  been  nothing.  If  the  churches 
advocated  immortalit)^,  if  they  advocated  eternal  justice,  if 
they  said  that  man  would  be  rewarded  and  punished  accord- 
ing to  deeds ;  if  they  admitted  that  some  time  in  eternity 
there  would  be  an  opportunity  given  to  lift  up  souls,  and 
that  throughout  all  the  ages  the  angels  of  progress  and  virtue 
would  beckon  the  fallen  upward ;  and  that  some  time,  and 
no  matter  how  far  away  they  might  put  off  the  time,  all  the 
children  of  men  would  be  reasonably  happy,  I  never  would 
say  a  solitary  word  against  the  church,  but  just  as  long  as 
they  preach  that  the  majority  of  mankind  will  suffer  eternal 
pain,  just  so  long  I  shall  oppose  them ;  that  is  to  say,  as  long 
as  I  live. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  in  a  God ;  and,  if  so,  what  kind 
of  a  God? 

Answer.  Let  me,  in  the  first  place,  lay  a  foundation  for  an 
answer. 

First. — Man  gets  all  food  for  thought  through  the  medium 
of  the  senses.  The  effect  of  nature  upon  the  senses,  and 
through  the  senses  upon  the  brain,  must  be  natural.  All 
food  for  thought,  then,  is  natural.  As  a  consequence  of  this, 
there  can  be  no  supernatural  idea  in  the  human  brain. 
Whatever  idea  there  is  must  have  been  a  natural  product. 
If,  then,  there  is  no  supernatural  idea  in  the  human  brain, 
then  there  cannot  be  in  the  human  brain  an  idea  of  the  su- 
pernatural. If  we  can  have  no  idea  of  the  supernatural,  and 
if  the  God  of  whom  you  spoke  is  admitted  to  be  supernatural, 
then,  of  course,  I  can  have  no  idea  of  him,  and  I  certainly 
can  have  no  very  fixed  belief  on  any  subject  about  which  I 
have  no  idea. 

There  may  be  a  God  for  all  I  knoWo  There  may  be  thou- 
sands of  them.  But  the  idea  of  an  infinite  Being  outside 
and  independent  of  nature  is  inconceivable,  I  do  not  know 
of  any  word  that  would  explain  my  doctrine  or  my  views 


INTERVIEWS.  57 

•Upon  that  subject.  I  suppose  Pantheism  is  as  near  as  I 
could  go.  I  believe  in  the  eternity  of  matter  and  in  the 
eternity  of  intelligence,  but  I  do  not  believe  in  any  Being 
outside  of  nature.  I  do  not  believe  in  any  personal  Deity. 
I  do  not  believe  in  any  aristocracy  of  the  air.  I  know  nothing 
about  origin  or  destiny.  Between  these  two  horizons  I  live, 
whether  I  wish  to  or  not,  and  must  be  satisfied  with  what 
I  find  between  these  two  horizons.  I  have  never  heard  any 
God  described  that  I  believe  in.  I  have  never  heard  any 
religion  explained  that  I  accept.  To  make  something  out 
of  nothing  cannot  be  more  absurd  than  that  an  infinite  in- 
telligence made  this  world,  and  proceeded  to  fill  it  with 
crime  and  want  and  agony,  and  then,  not  satisfied  with  the 
evil  he  had  wrought,  made  a  hell  in  which  to  consummate 
the  great  mistake. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  the  world  and  all  that  is  in 
it  came  by  chance  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  believe  anything  comes  by  chance.  I 
regard  the  present  as  the  necessary  child  of  a  necessary  past. 
I  believe  matter  is  eternal ;  that  it  has  eternally  existed  and 
eternally  will  exist.  I  believe  that  in  all  matter,  in  some 
way,  there  is  what  we  call  force ;  that  one  of  the  forms  of 
force  is  intelligence.  I  believe  that  whatever  is  in  the  uni- 
verse has  existed  from  eternity  and  will  forever  exist. 

Secondly. — I  exclude  from  m^^  philosophy  all  ideas  of 
chance.  Matter  changes  eternally  its  form,  never  its  essence. 
You  cannot  conceive  of  anything  being  created.  No  one 
can  conceive  of  anything  existing  without  a  cause  or  with  a 
cause.  Let  me  explain ;  a  thing  is  not  a  cause  until  an  effect 
has  been  produced ;  so  that,  after  all,  cause  and  effect  are 
twins  coming  into  life  at  precisely  the  same  instant,  born  of 
the  womb  of  an  unknown  mother.  The  Universe  is  the  only 
fact,  and  everything  that  ever  has  happened,  is  happening, 
or  will  happen,  are  but  the  different  aspects  of  the  one  eternal 

fact. — The  Dispatch,  Pittsburg,  Pa.,  December  11,  1880. 


THE  POLITICAL  OUTLOOK. 

Question.  What  phases  will  the  Southern  question  assume 
in  the  next  four  years? 

Answer.  The  next  Congress  should  promptly  tinseat 
every  member  of  Congress  in  whose  district  there  was  not 
a  fair  and  honest  election.  That  is  the  first  hard  work  to 
be  done.  Let  notice,  in  this  way,  be  given  to  the  whole 
country,  that  fraud  cannot  succeed.  No  man  should  be 
allowed  to  hold  a  seat  by  force  or  fraud.  Just  as  soon  as 
it  is  understood  that  fraud  is  useless  it  will  be  abandoned. 
In  that  way  the  honest  voters  of  the  whole  country  can  be 
protected. 

An  honest  vote  settles  the  Southern  question,  and  Con- 
gress has  the  power  to  compel  an  honest  vote,  or  to  leave  the 
dishonest  districts  without  representation.  I  want  this 
policy  adopted,  not  only  in  the  South,  but  in  the  North. 
No  man  touched  or  stained  with  fraud  should  be  allowed  to 
hold  his  seat.  Send  such  men  home,  and  let  them  stay 
there  until  sent  back  by  honest  votes.  The  Southern  ques- 
tion is  a  Northern  question,  and  the  Republican  party  must 
settle  it  for  all  time.  We  must  have  honest  elections,  or  the 
Republic  must  fall.  Illegal  voting  must  be  considered  and 
punished  as  a  crime. 

Taking  one  hundred  and  seventy  thousand  as  the  basis 
of  representation,  the  South,  through  her  astotmding  in- 
crease of  colored  population,  gains  three  electoral  votes, 
while  the  North  and  East  lose  three.  Garfield  was  elected 
by  the  thirty  thousand  colored  votes  cast  in  New  York. 

Question.  Will  the  negro  continue  to  be  the  balance  of 
power,  and  if  so,  will  it  inure  to  his  benefit  ? 

Answer.  The  more  political  power  the  colored  man  has 
the  better  he  will  be  treated,  and  if  he  ever  holds  the  balance 

(58) 


INTERVIEWS.  59 

of  power  he  will  be  treated  as  well  as  the  balance  of  our 
citizens.  My  idea  is  that  the  colored  man  should  stand  on 
an  equality  with  the  white  before  the  law ;  that  he  should 
honestly  be  protected  in  all  his  rights;  that  he  should  be 
allowed  to  vote,  and  that  his  vote  should  be  counted.  It  is 
a  simple  question  of  honesty.  The  colored  people  are  doing 
well ;  they  are  industrious ;  they  are  trying  to  get  an  educa- 
tion, and,  on  the  whole,  I  think  they  are  behaving  iully  as 
well  as  the  whites.  They  are  the  most  forgiving  people  in 
the  v/orld,  and  about  the  only  real  Christians  in  our  countrj-. 
They  have  suffered  enough,  and  for  one  I  am  on  their  side. 
I  think  more  of  honest  black  people  than  of  dishonest  whites, 
to  say  the  least  of  it. 

Question.  Do  you  apprehend  any  trouble  from  the  South- 
ern leaders  in  this  closing  session  of  Congress,  in  attempts 
to  force  pernicious  legislation  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  The  Southern  leaders  know  that  the 
doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty  is  dead.  They  know  that  they 
cannot  depend  upon  the  Northern  Democrat,  and  they  know 
that  the  best  interests  of  the  South  can  only  be  preserved  by 
admitting  that  the  war  settled  the  questions  and  ideas  fought 
for  and  against.  They  know  that  this  country  is  a  Nation, 
and  that  no  party  can  possibly  succeed  that  advocates  any- 
thing contrary  to  that.  My  own  opinion  is  that  most  of  the 
Southern  leaders  are  heartily  ashamed  of  the  course  pur- 
sued by  their  Northern  friends,  and  will  take  the  first  op- 
portunity to  say  so. 

Question.  In  what  light  do  you  regard  the  Chinaman? 

Answer.  I  am  opposed  to  compulsory  immigration,  or 
cooley  or  slave  immigration.  If  Chinamen  are  sent  to  this 
country  by  corporations  or  companies  under  contracts  that 
amount  to  slavery  or  anything  like  or  near  it,  then  I  am 
opposed  to  it.  But  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  I  would 
be  opposed  to  voluntary  immigration.  I  see  by  the  papers 
that  a  new  treaty  has  been  agreed  upon  that  will  probably 


6o  INTERVIEWS. 

be  ratified  and  be  satisfactory  to  all  parties.  We  ought  to 
treat  China  with  the  utmost  fairness.  If  our  treaty  is 
wrong,  amend  it,  but  do  so  according  to  the  recognized 
usage  of  nationSc  After  what  has  been  said  and  done  in 
this  country  I  think  there  is  very  little  danger  of  any  China- 
man voluntarily  coming  here.  By  this  time  China  must 
have  an  exceedingly  exalted  opinion  of  our  religion,  and  of 
the  justice  and  hospitality  born  of  our  most  holy  faith. 

Question,  What  is  your  opinion  of  making  ex-Preeidents 
Senators  for  life  ? 

Answer.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  I  am  against  any  man  hold- 
ing office  for  life.  And  I  see  no  more  reason  for  making 
ex-Presidents  Senators,  than  for  making  ex-Senators  Presi- 
dents. To  me  the  idea  is  preposterous.  Why  should  ex- 
Presidents  betaken  care  of?  In  this  country  labor  is  not 
disgraceful,  and  after  a  man  has  been  President  he  has  still 
the  right  to  be  useful.  I  am  personally  acquainted  with 
several  men  who  will  agree,  in  consideration  of  being  elected 
to  the  presidency,  not  to  ask  for  another  office  during  their 
natural  lives.  The  people  of  this  country  should  never 
allow  a  great  man  to  suffer.  The  hand,  not  of  charity,  but 
of  justice  and  generosity,  should  be  forever  open  to  those 
who  have  performed  great  public  service. 

But  the  ex-Presidents  of  the  future  may  not  all  be  great 
and  good  men,  and  bad  ex-Presidents  will  not  make  good 
Senators.  If  the  nation  does  anything,  let  it  give  a  reason- 
able pension  to  ex-Presidents.  No  man  feels  like  giving 
pension,  power,  or  place  to  General  Grant  simply  because 
he  was  once  President,  but  because  he  was  a  great  soldier, 
and  led  the  armies  of  the  nation  to  victory.  Make  him  a 
General,  and  retire  him  with  the  highest  military  title.  Let 
him  grandly  wear  the  laurels  he  so  nobly  won,  and  should 
the  sky  at  any  time  be  darkened  with  a  cloud  of  foreign 
war,  this  country  will  again  hand  him  the  sword.  Such  a 
course  honors  the  nation  and  the  man. 


INTERVIEWSo  '6l 

Question.    Are  we  not    entering   upon  the  era  of    our 
greatest  prosperity  ? 

Answer.  We  are  just  beginning  to  be  prosperous.  The 
Northern  Pacific  Railroad  is  to  be  completed.  Forty  millions 
of  dollars  have  just  been  raised  by  that  company,  and  new 
States  will  soon  be  born  in  the  great  Northwest.  The  Texas 
Pacific  will  be  pushed  to  San  Diego,  and  in  a  few  years 
we  will  ride  in  a  Pullman  car  from  Chicago  to  the  City 
of  Mexico.  The  gold  and  silver  mines  are  yielding  more 
and  more,  and  within  the  last  ten  years  more  than 
forty  million  acres  of  land  have  been  changed  from  wilder- 
ness to  farms.  This  country  is  beginning  to  grow.  We 
have  just  fairly  entered  upon  what  I  believe  will  be  the 
grandest  period  of  national  development  and  prosper- 
ity. With  the  Republican  party  in  power;  with  good 
money;  with  unlimited  credit;  with  the  best  land  in  the 
world ;  with  ninety  thousand  miles  of  railway ;  with  moun- 
tains of  gold  and  silver ;  with  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
square  miles  of  coal  fields ;  with  iron  enough  for  the  whole 
world;  with  the  best  system  of  common  schools;  with 
telegraph  wires  reaching  every  city  and  town,  so  that  no 
two  citizens  are  an  hour  apart;  with  the  telephone,  that 
makes  everybody  in  the  city  live  next  door,  and  with  the 
best  folks  in  the  world,  how  can  we  help  prospering  until 
the  continent  is  covered  with  happy  homes  ? 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  civil  service  reform? 

Answer.  I  am  in  favor  of  it.  I  want  such  civil  serviv:e 
reform  that  all  the  offices  will  be  filled  with  good  and  com- 
petent Republicans.  The  majority  should  rule,  and  the  mem 
who  are  in  favor  of  the  views  of  the  majority  should  hold 
the  offices.  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  the  idea  that  a  party 
should  show  its  liberalitj^  at  the  expense  of  its  principles. 
Men  holding  office  can  afford  to  take  their  chances  with  the 
rest  of  us.  If  they  are  Democrats,  they  should  not  expect 
to  succeed  when  their  party  is  defeated.    I  believe  that  Ifcere 


62  INTERVIEWSo 

are  enough  good,  honest  Republicans  in  this  country  to  fill 
all  the  offices,  and  I  am  opposed  to  taking  any  Democrats 
until  the  Republican  supply  is  exhausted. 

Men  should  not  join  the  Republican  party  to  get  office. 
Such  men  are  contemptible  to  the  last  degree.  Neither 
should  a  Republican  administration  compel  a  man  to  leave 
the  party  to  get  a  Federal  appointment.  After  a  great  bat- 
tle has  been  fought  I  do  not  believe  that  the  victorious 
general  should  reward  the  officers  of  the  conquered  army. 

My  doctrine  is,  rewards  for  friends. —  The  Commercial^  Cinciaaati, 
Ohio,  December  6,  1880. 

MR.  BEECHER,  MOSES  AND  THE  NEGRO. 

Question.  Mr.  Beecher  is  here.     Have  you  seen  him  ? 

Answer.  No,  I  did  not  meet  Mr.  Beecher.  Neither  did  I 
hear  him  lecture.  The  fact  is,  that  long  ago  I  made  up  my 
mind  that  under  no  circumstances  would  I  attend  any  lec- 
ture or  other  entertainment  given  at  Lincoln  Hall.  First, 
because  the  hall  has  been  denied  me,  and  secondly,  because 
I  regard  it  as  exceedingly  unsafe.  The  hall  is  up  several 
stories  from  the  ground,  and  in  case  of  the  slightest  panic, 
in  my  judgment,  many  lives  would  be  lost.  Had  it  not 
been  for  this,  and  for  the  fact  that  the  persons  owning  it 
imagined  that  because  they  had  control,  the  brick  and 
mortar  had  some  kind  of  holy  and  sacred  quality,  and  that 
this  holiness  is  of  such  a  wonderful  character  that  it  would 
not  be  proper  for  a  man  in  that  hall  to  tell  his  honest 
thoughts,  I  would  have  heard  him. 

Question.  Then  I  assume  that  you  and  Mr.  Beecher  have 
made  up  ? 

Answer.  There  is  nothing  to  be  made  up  so  far  as  I 
know.  Mi.  Beecher  has  treated  me  very  well,  and, 
I  believe,  a  little  too  well  for  his  own  peace  of  mind.  I 
have  been  informed  that  some  members  of  Plymouth 
Church  felt  exceedingly  hurt  that  their  pastor  should  so 


INTERVIEWS.  63 

far  forget  himself  as  to  extend  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
to  one  who  differs  from  him  upon  what  they  consider  very 
essential  points  in  theology.  You  see  I  have  denied  with 
all  my  might,  a  great  many  times,  the  infamous  doctrine 
of  eternal  punishment.  I  have  also  had  the  temerity  to 
suggest  that  I  did  not  believe  that  a  being  of  infinite  jus- 
tice and  mercy  was  the  author  of  all  that  I  find  in  the  Old 
Testament.  As,  for  instance,  I  have  insisted  that  God 
never  commanded  anybody  to  butcher  women  or  to  cut  the 
throats  of  prattling  babes.  These  orthodox  gentlemen 
have  rushed  to  the  rescue  of  Jehovah  by  insisting  that  he 
did  all  these  horrible  things.  I  have  also  maintained  that 
God  never  sanctioned  or  upheld  human  slavery  ;  that  he 
never  would  make  one  child  to  own  and  beat  another. 

I  have  also  expressed  some  doubts  as  to  whether  this 
same  God  ever  established  the  institution  of  polygamy. 
I  have  insisted  that  that  institution  is  simply  infamous ; 
that  it  destroys  the  idea  of  home ;  that  it  turns  to  ashes 
the  most  sacred  words  in  our  language,  and  leaves  the  world 
a  kind  of  den  in  which  crawl  the  serpents  of  selfishness 
and  lust.  I  have  been  informed  that  after  Mr.  Beecher  had 
treated  me  kindly  a  few  members  of  his  congregation 
objected,  and  really  felt  ashamed  that  he  had  so  forgotten 
himself.  After  that,  Mr.  Beecher  saw  fit  to  give  his  ideas 
of  the  position  I  had  taken.  In  this  he  was  not  exceed- 
ingly kind,  nor  was  his  justice  very  conspicuous.  But  I 
cared  nothing  about  that,  not  the  least.  As  I  have  said 
before,  whenever  Mr.  Beecher  says  a  good  thing  I  give  him 
credit.  Whenever  he  does  an  unfair  or  unjust  thing  I 
charge  it  to  the  account  of  his  religion.  I  have  insisted, 
and  I  still  insist,  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  far  better  than  his 
creed.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  believes  in  the  doctrine  of 
eternal  punishment.  Neither  do  I  believe  that  he  believes 
in  the  literal  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  And,  after  all,  if  the 
Bible  is  not  true,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  insist  upon  its 


64  INTERVIEWS. 

inspiration.  An  inspired  lie  is  no  better  than  an  uninspired 
one.  If  the  Bible  is  true  it  does  not  need  to  be  inspired, 
If  it  is  not  true,  inspiration  does  not  help  it.  So  that  after 
all  it  is  simply  a  question  of  fact.  Is  it  true?  I  believe 
Mr.  Beecher  stated  that  one  of  my  grievous  faults  was  that 
I  picked  out  the  bad  things  in  the  Bible.  How  an  infinitely 
good  and  wise  God  came  to  put  bad  things  in  his  book  Mr. 
Beecher  does  not  explain.  I  have  insisted  that  the  Bible 
is  not  inspired,  and,  in  order  to  prove  that,  have  pointed 
out  such  passages  as  I  deemed  unworthy  to  have  been  writ- 
ten even  by  a  civilized  man  or  a  savage.  I  certainly  would 
not  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  Bible  is  uninspired  by 
picking  out  its  best  passages.  I  admit  that  there  are 
many  good  things  in  the  Bible.  The  fact  that  there  are 
good  things  in  it  does  not  prove  its  inspiration,  because  there 
are  thousands  of  other  books  containing  good  things,  and 
yet  no  one  claims  they  are  inspired.  Shakespeare's  works 
contain  a  thousand  times  more  good  things  than  the  Bible  ; 
but  no  one  claims  he  was  an  inspired  man.  It  is  also  true 
that  there  are  many  bad  things  in  Shakespeare — many  pas- 
sages which  I  wish  he  had  never  written.  But  I  can  excuse 
Shakespeare,  because  he  did  not  rise  absolutely  above  his 
time.  That  is  to  say,  he  was  a  man  ;  that  is  to  say,  he  was 
imperfect.  If  anybody  claimed  now  that  Shakespeare  was 
actually  inspired,  that  claim  would  be  answered  by  point- 
ing to  certain  weak  or  bad  or  vulgar  passages  in  his  works. 
But  every  Christian  will  say  that  it  is  a  certain  kind  of 
blasphemy  to  impute  vulgarity  or  weakness  to  God,  as 
they  are  all  obliged  to  defend  the  weak,  the  bad  and  the 
vulgar,  so  long  as  they  insist  upon  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  Now,  I  pursued  the  same  course  with  the  Bible  that 
Mr.  Beecher  has  pursued  with  me.  Why  did  he  want  to 
pick  out  my  bad  things  ?  Is  it  possible  that  he  is  a  kind  of 
vulture  that  sees  only  the  carrion  of  another  ?  After  all, 
has  he  not  pursued  the  same   method  with  me  that  he 


INTERVIEWS.  65 

blames  me  for  pursuing  in  regard  to  the  Bible  ?  Of  course 
lie  must  pursue  that  methodo  He  could  not  object  to  me 
and  then  point  out  passages  that  were  not  objectionable.  If 
he  found  fault  he  had  to  find  faults  in  order  to  sustain  his 
ground.  That  is  exactly  what  I  have  done  with  the  Scrip- 
tures— nothing  more  and  nothing  less.  The  reason  I  have 
thrown  away  the  Bible  is  that  in  many  places  it  is  harsh, 
cruel,  unjust,  coarse,  vulgar,  atrocious,  infamous.  At  the 
same  time,  I  admit  that  it  contains  many  passages  of  an 
excellent  and  splendid  character — many  good  things,  wise 
sayings,  and  many  excellent  and  just  laws. 

But  I  would  like  to  ask  this:  Suppose  there  were  no 
passages  in  the  Bible  except  those  upholding  slavery, 
polygamy  and  wars  of  extermination ;  would  anybody 
then  claim  that  it  was  the  word  of  God  ?  I  would  like  to 
ask  if  there  is  a  Christian  in  the  world  who  would  not  be 
overjoyed  to  find  that  every  one  of  these  passages  was  an 
interpolation  ?  I  would  also  like  to  ask  Mr.  Beecher  if  he 
would  not  be  greatly  gratified  to  find  that  after  God  had 
written  the  Bible  the  Devil  had  got  hold  of  it,  and  interpo- 
lated all  these  passages  about  slavery,  polygamy,  the 
slaughter  of  women  and  babes  and  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment  ?  Suppose,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Devil  did  get 
hold  of  it ;  what  part  of  the  Bible  would  Mr.  Beecher  pick 
out  as  having  been  written  by  the  Devil  ?  And  if  he  picks 
out  these  passages  could  not  the  Devil  answer  him  by  say- 
ing, "  You,  Mr.  Beecher,  are  like  a  vulture,  a  kind  of  buz- 
zard, flying  through  the  tainted  air  of  inspiration,  and 
pouncing  down  upon  the  carrion.  Why  do  you  not  fly 
like  a  dove,  and  why  do  you  not  have  the  innocent  ignor- 
ance of  the  dove,  so  that  you  could  light  upon  a  carcass 
and  imagine  that  you  were  surrounded  by  the  perfume 
of  violets?  "  The  fact  is  that  good  things  in  a  book  do  not 
prove  that  it  is  inspired,  but  the  presence  of  bad  things 
does  prove  that  it  is  not. 


66  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  What  was  the  real  difficulty  between  you  and 
Moses,  Colonel,  a  man  who  has  been  dead  for  thousands 
of  years  ? 

Answer.  We  never  had  any  difficulty.  I  have  always 
taken  pains  to  say  that  Moses  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
Pentateuch.  Those  books,  in  my  judgment,  were  written 
several  centuries  after  Moses  had  become  dust  in  his  un- 
known sepulchre.  No  doubt  Moses  was  quite  a  man  in 
his  day,  if  he  ever  existed  at  all.  Some  people  say  that 
Moses  is  exactly  the  same  as  "  law-giver ; "  that  is  to  say, 
as  Legislature,  that  is  to  say  as  Congress.  Imagine  some- 
body in  the  future  as  regarding  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  as  one  person  !  And  then  imagine  that  somebody 
endeavoring  to  prove  that  Congress  was  always  consistent. 
But,  whether  Moses  lived  or  not  makes  but  little  difference 
to  me.  I  presume  he  filled  the  place  and  did  the  work 
that  he  was  compelled  to  do,  and  although  according  to 
the  account  God  had  much  to  say  to  him  with  regard  to 
the  making  of  altars,  tongs,  snuffers  and  candlesticks, 
there  is  much  left  for  nature  still  to  tell.  Thinking  of 
Moses  as  a  man,  admitting  that  he  was  above  his  fellows, 
that  he  was  in  his  day  and  generation  a  leader,  and,  in  a 
certain  narrow  sense,  a  patriot,  that  he  was  the  founder  of 
the  Jewish  people;  that  he  found  them  barbarians  and 
endeavored  to  control  them  by  thunder  and  lightning,  and 
found  it  necessary  to  pretend  that  he  was  in  partnership 
with  the  power  governing  the  universe ;  that  he  took 
advantage  of  their  ignorance  and  fear,  just  as  politicians 
do  now,  and  as  theologians  always  will,  still,  I  see  no  evi- 
dence that  the  man  Moses  was  any  nearer  to  God  than  his 
descendants,  who  are  still  warring  against  the  Philistines 
in  every  civilized  part  of  the  globe.  Moses  was  a  believer 
in  slavery,  in  polygamy,  in  wars  of  extermination,  in 
religious  persecution  and  intolerance  and  in  almost  every- 
thing that  is  now  regarded  with  loathing,  contempt  and 


INTERVIEWS.  67 

scorn.  The  Jehovali  of  whom  he  speaks  violated,  or  com- 
mands the  violation  of  at  least  nine  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments he  gave.  There  is  one  thing,  however,  that  can  be 
said  of  Moses  that  cannot  be  said  of  any  person  who  now 
insists  that  he  was  inspired,  and  that  is,  he  was  in  advance 
of  his  time. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Buckner  Bill  for  the 
colonization  of  the  negroes  in  Mexico  ? 

Answer.  Where  does  Mr.  Buckner  propose  to  colonize 
the  white  people,  and  what  right  has  he  to  propose  the 
colonization  of  six  millions  of  people  ?  Should  we  not  have 
other  bills  to  colonize  the  Germans,  the  Swedes,  the  Irish, 
and  then,  may  be,  another  bill  to  drive  the  Chinese  into 
the  sea  ?  Where  do  we  get  the  right  to  say  that  the  negroes 
must  emigrate  ? 

All  such  schemes  will,  in  my  judgment,  prove  utterly 
futile.  Perhaps  the  history  of  the  world  does  not  give  an 
instance  of  the  emigration  of  six  millions  of  people.  Not- 
withstanding the  treatment  that  Ireland  has  received  from 
England,  which  may  be  designated  as  a  crime  of  three 
hundred  years,  the  Irish  still  love  Ireland.  All  the  des- 
potism in  the  world  will  never  crush  out  of  the  Irish  heart 
the  love  of  home — the  adoration  of  the  old  sod.  The 
negroes  of  the  South  have  certainly  suffered  enough  to 
drive  them  into  other  countries ;  but  after  all,  they  prefer 
to  stay  where  they  were  born.  They  prefer  to  live  where 
their  ancestors  were  slaves,  where  fathers  and  mothers 
were  sold  and  whipped  ;  and  I  don't  believe  it  will  be  pos- 
sible to  induce  a  majority  of  them  to  leave  that  land.  Of 
course,  thousands  may  leave,  and  in  process  of  time  mil- 
lions may  go,  but  I  don't  believe  emigration  will  ever 
equal  their  natural  increase.  As  the  whites  of  the  South 
become  civilized  the  reason  for  going  will  be  less  and  less. 

I  see  no  reason  why  the  white  and  black  men  cannot 
live  together  in  the  same  land,  under  the  same  flag.     The 


68  INTERVIEWS. 

beaut}''  of  liberty  is  you  cannot  have  it  unless  you  give  it 
away,  and  the  more  you  give  away  the  more  you  have.  I 
know  that  my  liberty  is  secure  only  because  others  are 
free. 

I  am  perfectly  willing  to  live  in  a  country  with  such 
men  as  Frederick  Douglass  and  Senator  Bruce.  I  have 
always  preferred  a  good,  clever  black  man  to  a  mean  white 
man,  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  I  shall  continue  in  that 
preference.  Now,  if  we  could  only  have  a  colonization 
bill  that  would  get  rid  of  all  the  rowdies,  all  the  rascals  and 
hypocrites,  I  would  like  to  see  it  carried  out,  though  some 
people  might  insist  that  it  would  amount  to  a  repudiation 
of  the  national  debt  and  that  hardly  enough  would  be  left 
to  pay  the  interest.  No,  talk  as  we  will,  the  colored  peo- 
ple helped  to  save  this  Nation.  They  have  been  at  all 
times  and  in  all  places  the  friends  of  our  flag ;  a  flag  that 
never  really  protected  them.  And  for  my  part,  I  am  will- 
ing that  they  should  stand  forever  beneath  that  flag,  the 
equal  in  rights  of  all  other  people.  Politically,  if  an}' 
black  men  are  to  be  sent  away,  I  want  it  understood  that 
each  one  is  to  be  accompanied  by  a  Democrat,  so  that  the 
balance  of  power,  especially  in  New  York,  will  not  be  dis- 
turbed. 

Question.  I  notice  that  leading  Republican  newspapers 
are  advising  General  Garfield  to  cut  loose  from  the 
machine  in  politics  ;  what  do  you  regard  as  the  machine  ? 

Answer.  All  defeated  candidates  regard  the  persons  who 
defeated  them  as  constituting  a  machine,  and  always  ima- 
gine that  there  is  some  wicked  conspiracy  at  the  bottom  of 
the  machine.  Some  of  the  recent  reformers  regard  the 
people  who  take  part  in  the  early  stages  of  a  political  cam- 
paign— who  attend  caucuses  and  primaries,  who  speak  of 
politics  to  their  neighbors,  as  members  and  parts  of  the 
machine,  and  regard  only  those  as  good  and  reliable 
American  citizens  who  take  no  part  whatever,  simply  re- 


INTERVIEWS.  69 

serving  the  right  to  grumble  after  the  work  has  been  done 
by  others.  Not  much  can  be  accomplished  in  politics 
without  an  organization,  and  the  moment  an  organization 
is  formed,  and,  you  might  say,  just  a  little  before,  leading 
spirits  will  be  developed.  Certain  men  will  take  the  lead, 
and  the  weaker  men  will  in  a  short  time,  unless  they  get 
all  the  loaves  and  fishes,  denounce  the  whole  thing  as  a 
machine,  and,  to  show  how  thoroughly  and  honestly  they 
detest  the  machine  in  politics,  will  endeavor  to  organize  a 
little  machine  themselves.  General  Garfield  has  been  in 
politics  for  many  years.  He  knows  the  principal  men  in 
both  parties.  He  knows  the  men  who  have  not  only  done 
something,  but  who  are  capable  of  doing  something,  and 
such  men  will  not,  in  my  opinion,  be  neglected.  I  do  not 
believe  that  General  Garfield  will  do  any  act  calculated  to 
divide  the  Republican  party.  No  thoroughly  great  man 
carries  personal  prejudice  into  the  administration  of  public 
affairs.  Of  course,  thousands  of  people  will  be  prophesy- 
ing that  this  man  is  to  be  snubbed  and  another  to  be  paid; 
but,  in  my  judgment,  after  the  4th  of  March  most  people 
will  say  that  General  Garfield  has  used  his  power  wisely 
and  that  he  has  neither  sought  nor  shunned  men  simply 
because  he  wished  to  pay  debts — either  of  love  or  hatred. 

— Washington  correspondeot,  Brooklyn  -£a^/^,  January  31,  1881. 

HADES,  DELAWARE  AND  FREETHOUGHT. 

Question.  Now  that  a  lull  has  come  in  politics,  I  thought 
I  would  come  and  see  what  is  going  on  in  the  religious 
world } 

Answer.  Well,  from  what  little  I  learn,  there  has  not  been 
much  going  on  during  the  last  year.  There  are  five  hundred 
and  twenty-six  Congregational  Churches  in  Massachusetts, 
and  two  hundred  of  these  churches  have  not  received  a  new 
member  for  an  entire  year,  and  the  others  have  scarcely  held 
their  own.     In  Illinois  there  are  four  hundred  and  eighty- 


70  INTERVIEWS. 

three  Presbyterian  Churclies,  and  they  have  now  fewer  mem- 
bers than  they  had  in  1879,  and  of  the  four  hundred  and 
eighty -three,  one  hundred  and  eighty-three  have  not  received 
a  single  new  member  for  twelve  months.  A  report  has  been 
made, under  the  auspices  of  the  Pan-Presbyterian  Council,to 
the  effect  that  there  are  in  the  v/hole  world  about  three  mill- 
ions of  Presbyterians.  This  is  about  one-fifth  of  one  per 
cent,  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  world.  The  probability  is 
that  of  the  three  million  nominal  Presbyterians,  not  more 
than  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  actually  believe  the 
doctrine,  and  of  the  two  or  three  hundred  thousand,  not 
more  than  five  or  six  hundred  have  any  true  conception  of 
what  the  doctrine  is.  As  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  only 
been  able  to  induce  one-fifth  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  people  to 
even  call  themselves  Presbyterians,  about  how  long  will  it 
take,  at  this  rate,  to  convert  mankind  ?  The  fact  is,  there 
seems  to  be  a  general  lull  along  the  entire  line,  and  just  at 
present  very  little  is  being  done  by  the  orthodox  people  to 
keep  their  fellow-citizens  out  of  hell. 

Question.  Do  3^ou  really  think  that  the  orthodox  people 
now  believe  in  the  old  doctrine  of  eternal  punisment,  and 
that  they  really  think  there  is  the  kind  of  hell  that  our  an- 
cestors so  carefully  described? 

Aiiswer.  I  am  afraid  that  the  old  idea  is  dying  out,  and 
that  many  Christians  are  slowly  giving  up  the  consolations 
naturally  springing  from  the  old  belief.  Another  terrible 
blow  to  the  old  infamy  is  the  fact  that  in  the  revised  New 
Testament  the  consoling  word  hell  has  been  left  out.  I  am 
informed  that  in  the  revised  New  Testament  the  word  Hades 
has  been  substituted.  As  nobody  knows  exactly  what  Hades 
means,  it  will  not  be  quite  so  easy  to  frighten  people  at  re- 
vivals by  threatening  them  with  something  that  they  don't 
clearly  understand.  After  this,  when  the  impassioned  orator 
cries  out  that  all  the  unconverted  will  be  sent  to  Hades,  the 
poor  sinners,  instead  of  getting  frightened,  will  beg;n  to  ask 


INTERVIEWS.  71 

each  other  what  and  where  that  is.  It  will  take  many  years 
of  preaching  to  clothe  that  word  in  all  the  terrors  and  hoi- 
rors,  pains  and  penalties  and  pangs  of  hell.  Hades  is  a 
compromise.  It  is  a  concession  to  the  philosophy  of  our 
day.  It  is  a  graceful  acknowledgment  to  the  growing  spirit 
of  investigation,  that  hell,  after  all,  is  a  barbaric  mistake. 
Hades  is  the  death  of  revivals.  It  cannot  be  used  in  song. 
It  won't  rhyme  with  anything  with  the  same  force  that  hell 
does.  It  is  altogether  more  shadowy  than  hot.  It  is  not 
associated  with  brimstone  and  flame.  It  sounds  somewhat 
indistinct,  somewhat  lonesome,  a  little  desolate,  but  not  al- 
together uncomfortable.  For  revival  purposes,  Hades  is 
simply  useless,  and  few  conversions  will  be  made  in  the  old 
way  under  the  revised  Testament. 

Question.  Do  you  really  think  that  the  church  is  losing 
ground  ? 

Answer.  I  am  not,  as  you  probably  know,  connected  with 
any  orthodox  organization,  and  consequently  have  to  rely 
upon  them  for  my  information.  If  they  can  be  believed,  the 
church  is  certainly  in  an  extremely  bad  condition.  I  find 
that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cuyler,  only  a  few  days  ago,  speaking  of 
the  religious  condition  of  Brooklyn — and  Brooklyn,  you 
know,  has  been  called  the  City  of  Churches — stated  that  the 
great  mass  of  that  Christian  city  was  out  of  Christ,  and  that 
more  professing  Christians  went  to  the  theatre  than  to  the 
prayer  meeting.  This,  certainly,  from  their  standpoint, is  a 
most  terrible  declaration.  Brooklyn,  you  know,  is  one  of 
the  great  religious  centres  of  the  world — a  city  in  which 
nearly  all  the  people  are  engaged  either  in  delivering  or  in 
hearing  sermons ;  a  city  filled  with  the  editors  of  religious 
periodicals;  a  city  of  prayer  and  praise  ;  and  yet,  while 
prayer  meetings  are  free,  the  theatres,  with  the  free  list  en- 
tirely suspended,  catch  more  Christians  than  the  churches  ; 
and  this  happens  while  all  the  pulpits  thunder  against  the 
stage,  and  the  stage  remains  silent  as  to  the  pulpit.     At  th2 


72  INTERVIEWS. 

same  meeting  in  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cuyler  made  his 
astounding  statements  the  Rev  Mr.  Pentecost  was  the  bearer 
of  the  happ3^  news  that  four  out  of  five  persons  living  in  the 
city  of  Brooklyn  were  going  down  to  hell  with  no  God  and 
with  no  hope.  If  he  had  read  the  revised  Testament  he 
would  have  said  "  Hades,"  and  the  effect  of  the  statement 
would  have  been  entirely  lost.  If  four-fifths  of  the  people  of 
that  great  city  are  destined  to  eternal  pain,  certainly  we  can- 
not depend  upon  churches  for  the  salvation  of  the  world.  At 
the  meeting  of  the  Brooklyn  pastors  they  were  in  doubt  as 
to  whether  they  should  depend  upon  further  meetings,  or 
upon  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  purpose  of  convert- 
ing the  city. 

In  my  judgment,  it  would  be  much  better  to  devise  ways 
and  means  to  keep  a  good  many  people  from  fasting  in 
Brooklyn.  If  they  had  more  meat,  they  could  get  along  with 
less  meeting.  If  fasting  would  save  a  city,  there  are  always 
plenty  of  hungry  folks  even  in  that  Christian  town.  The 
real  trouble  with  the  church  of  to-day  is,  that  it  is  behind 
the  intelligence  of  the  people.  Its  doctrines  no  longer  satisfy 
the  brains  of  the  nineteenth  century ;  and  if  the  church 
proposes  to  hold  its  power,  it  must  lose  its  superstitions. 
The  day  of  revivals  is  gone.  Only  the  ignorant  and  un- 
thinking can  hereafter  be  impressed  by  hearing  the  ortho- 
dox creed.  Fear  has  in  it  no  reformatory  power,  and  the 
more  intelligent  the  world  grows  the  more  despicable  and 
contemptible  the  doctrine  of  eternal  misery  will  become. 
The  tendency  of  the  age  is  toward  intellectual  liberty,  to- 
ward personal  investigation.  Authority  is  no  longer  taken 
for  truth.  People  are  beginning  to  find  that  all  the  great  and 
good  are  not  dead — that  some  good  people  are  alive,  and  that 
the  demonstrations  of  to-day  are  fully  equal  to  the  mistaken 
theories  of  the  past. 

Question.  How  are  you  getting  along  with  Delaware  ? 

Answer.  First  rate.     You  know  I  have  been  wondering 


INTERVIEWS.  73 

where  Comegys  came  from,  and  at  last  I  have  made  the  dis- 
covery. I  was  told  the  other  day  by  a  gentleman  from  Del- 
aware that  many  years  ago  Colonel  Hazelitt  died ;  that 
Colonel  Hazelitt  was  an  old  Revolutionary  officer,  and  that 
when  they  were  digging  his  grave  they  dug  up  Comegys. 
Back  of  that  no  one  knows  anything  of  his  history.  The 
only  thing  they  know  about  him  certainly,  is,  that  he  has 
never  changed  one  of  his  views  since  he  was  found,  and  that 
he  never  will.  I  am  inclined  to  think,  however,  that  he  lives 
in  a  communit}^  congenial  to  him.  For  instance,  I  saw  in  a 
paper  the  other  day  that  within  a  radius  of  thirty  miles 
around  Georgetown,  Delaware,  there  are  about  two  hundred 
orphan  and  friendless  children.  These  children,  it  seems, 
were  indentured  to  Delaware  farmers  by  the  managers  of 
orphan  asylums  and  other  public  institutions  in  and  about 
Philadelphia.     It  is  stated  in  the  paper,  that : 

Many  of  these  farmers  are  rough  task-masters,  and  if  a  boy  fails 
to  perform  the  work  of  an  adult,  he  is  almost  certain  to  be  cruelly 
treated,  half  starved,  and  in  the  coldest  weather  wretchedly  clad.  If 
he  does  the  work,  his  life  is  not  likely  to  be  much  happier,  for  as  a 
rule  he  will  receive  more  kicks  than  candy.  The  result  in  either  case 
is  almost  certain  to  be  wrecked  constitutions,  dwarfed  bodies,  round- 
ed shoulders,  and  limbs  crippled  or  rendered  useless  by  frost  or  rheu- 
matism. The  principal  diet  of  these  boys  is  corn  pone.  A  few  days 
ago.  Constable  W.  H.  Johnston  went  to  the  house  of  Reuben  Taylor, 
and  on  entering  the  sitting  room  his  attention  was  attracted  by  the 
moans  of  its  only  occupant,  a  little  colored  boy,  who  was  lying  on  the 
hearth  in  front  of  the  fireplace.  The  boy's  head  was  covered  with 
ashes  from  the  fire,  and  he  did  not  pay  the  slightest  attention  to  the 
visitor,  until  Johnston  asked  what  made  him  cry.  Then  the  little 
fellow  sat  up  and  drawing  an  old  rag  off  his  foot  said,  **  Look  there." 
The  sight  that  met  Johnston's  eye  was  horrible  beyond  description. 
The  poor  boy's  feet  were  so  horribly  frozen  that  the  flesh  had  dropped 
off  the  toes  until  the  bones  protruded.  The  flesh  on  the  sides,  bot- 
toms and  tops  of  his  feet  was  swollen  until  the  skin  cracked  in  many 
places,  and  the  inflamed  flesh  was  sloughing  off  in  great  flakes.  The 
frost-bitten  flesh  extended  to  his  knees,  the  joints  of  which  were  terri 
bly  inflamed.  The  right  one  had  already  begun  suppurating.  This 
poor  little  black  boy,  covered  with  nothing  but  a  cotton  shirt,  drilling 


74  INTERVIEWS. 

pants,  a  pair  of  nearly  worn  out  brogans  and  a  battered  old  hat,  on 
the  morning  of  December  30th,  the  coldest  day  of  the  season,  when 
the  mercury  was  seventeen  degrees  below  zero,  in  the  face  of  a  driv- 
ing snow  storm,  was  sent  half  a  mile  from  home  to  protect  his  master's 
unshucked  corn  from  the  depredations  of  marauding  cows  and  crows. 
He  remained  standing  around  in  the  snow  until  four  o'clock,  then  he 
drove  the  cows  home,  received  a  piece  of  cold  corn  pone,  and  was 
sent  out  in  the  snow  again  to  chop  stove  wood  till  dark.  Having  no 
bed,  he  slept  that  night  in  front  of  the  fireplace,  with  his  frozen  feet 
buried  in  the  ashes.  Dr.  C.  H.  Richards  found  it  necessary  to  cut  off 
the  boy's  feet  as  far  back  as  the  ankle  and  the  instep. 

This  was  but  one  case  in  several.  Personally,  I  have  no 
doubt  that  Mr.  Reuben  Taylor  entirely  agrees  with  Chief 
Justice  Comegys  on  the  great  question  of  blasphemy,  and 
probably  nothing  would  so  gratify  Mr.  Reuben  Taylor  as  to 
see  some  man  in  a  Delaware  jail  for  the  crime  of  having 
expressed  an  honest  thought.  No  wonder  that  in  the  State 
of  Delaware  the  Christ  of  intellectual  liberty  has  been  cruci- 
fied between  the  pillory  and  the  whipping-post.  Of  course  I 
know  that  there  are  thousands  of  most  excellent  people  in 
that  State — people  who  believe  in  intellectual  liberty,  and  who 
only  need  a  little  help — and  I  am  doing  what  I  can  in  that 
direction — to  repeal  the  laws  that  now  disgrace  the  statute 
book  of  that  little  commonwealth.  I  have  seen  many  people 
from  that  State  lately  who  really  wish  that  Colonel  Hazelitt 
had  never  died. 

Question,  What  has  the  press  generally  said  with  regard 
to  the  action  of  Judge  Comegys  ?  Do  they,  so  far  as  you 
know,  justify  his  charge  ? 

Answer.  A  great  many  papers  having  articles  upon  the 
subject  have  been  sent  to  me.  A  few  of  the  religious  papers 
seem  to  think  that  the  Judge  did  the  best  he  knew,  and 
there  is  one  secular  paper  called  the  Evening  News,  published 
at  Chester,  Pa.,  that  thinks  "  that  the  rebuke  from  so  high  a 
source  of  authority  will  have  a  most  excellent  effect,  and 
will  check  religious  blasphemers  from  parading  their  im- 
moral creeds  before  the  people."     The  editor  of  this  paper 


INTERVIEWS.  75 

should  at  once  emigrate  to  the  State  of  Delaware,  where  he 
properly  belongs.  He  is  either  a  native  of  Delaware,  or  most 
of  his  subscribers  are  citizens  of  that  country  ;  or,  it  may  be 
that  he  is  a  lineal  descendant  of  some  Hessian,  who  deserted 
during  the  Revolutionary  war.  Most  of  the  newspapers  in 
the  United  States  are  advocates  of  mental  freedom.  Prob- 
ably nothing  on  earth  has  been  so  potent  for  good  as  an  uii- 
trammeled,  fearless  press.  Among  the  papers  of  importance 
there  is  not  a  solitary  exception.  No  leading  journal  in  the 
United  States  can  be  found  upon  the  side  of  intellectual 
slavery.  Of  course,  a  few  rural  sheets  edited  by  gentlemen, 
as  Mr.  Greeley  would  say,  "  whom  God  in  his  inscrutable 
wisdom  had  allowed  to  exist,"  may  be  found  upon  the  other 
side,  and  may  be  small  enough,  weak  enough  and  mean 
enough  to  pander  to  the  lowest  and  basest  prejudices  of  their 
most  ignorant  subscribers.  These  editors  disgrace  their 
profession  and  exert  about  the  same  influence  upon  the  heads 
as  upon  the  pockets  of  their  subscribers — that  is  to  say, 
they  get  little  and  give  less. 

Questio7i.  Do  you  not  think  after  all,  the  people  who  are 
in  favor  of  having  you  arrested  for  blasphemy,  are  acting 
in  accordance  with  the  real  spirit  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  they  act  in  exact  accordance  with  many 
of  the  commands  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  accordance 
with  several  passages  in  the  New.  At  the  same  time,  it  may 
be  said  that  they  violate  passages  in  both.  If  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  true,  and  if  it  is  the  inspired  word  of  God,  of  course, 
an  Infidel  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  live ;  and  if  the  New 
Testament  is  true,  an  unbeliever  should  not  be  permitted  to 
speak.  There  are  many  passages,  though,  in  the  New 
Testament,  that  should  protect  even  an  Infidel.  Among 
them  this :  "  Do  unto  others  as  ye  would  that  others  should 
do  unto  you."  But  that  is  a  passage  that  has  probably  had 
as  little  effect  upon  the  church  as  any  other  in  the  Bible. 


76  INTERVIEWS. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  willing  to  adopt  that  pas- 
sage, and  I  am  willing  to  extend  to  every  other  human  be- 
ing every  right  that  I  claim  for  myself.  If  the  churches 
would  act  upon  this  principle,  if  they  would  say — every 
soul,  every  mind,  may  think  and  investigate  for  itself  ;  and 
around  all,  and  over  all,  shall  be  thrown  the  sacred  shield 
of  liberty,  I  should  be  on  their  side. 

Qtiestion.  How  do  you  stand  with  the  clergymen,  and 
what  is  their  opinion  of  you  and  of  your  views  ? 

Answer.  Most  of  them  envy  me  ;  envy  my  independence ; 
envy  my  success ;  think  that  I  ought  to  starve ;  that  the 
people  should  not  hear  me ;  say  that  I  do  what  I  do  for 
money,  for  popularity ;  that  I  am  actuated  by  hatred  of  all 
that  is  good  and  tender  and  holy  in  human  nature ;  think 
that  I  wish  to  tear  down  the  churches,  destroy  all  morality 
and  goodness,  and  usher  in  the  reign  of  crime  and  chaos. 
They  know  that  shepherds  are  unnecessary  in  the  absence 
of  wolves,  and  it  is  to  their  interest  to  convince  their  sheep 
that  they,  the  sheep,  need  protection.  This  they  are  willing 
to  give  them  for  half  the  wool.  No  doubt,  most  of  these 
ministers  are  honest,  and  are  doing  what  they  consider  their 
duty.  Be  this  as  it  may,  they  feel  the  power  slipping  from 
their  hands.  They  know  that  they  are  not  held  in  the  es- 
timation they  once  were.  They  know  that  the  idea  is  slowly 
growing  that  they  are  not  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  society.  They  know  that  the  intellectual 
world  cares  little  for  what  they  say,  and  that  the  great  tide 
of  human  progress  flows  on  careless  of  their  help  or  hin- 
drance. So  long  as  they  insist  on  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible,  they  are  compelled  to  take  the  ground  that  slavery 
was  once  a  divine  institution  ;  they  are  forced  to  defend 
cruelties  that  would  shock  the  heart  of  a  savage,  and  besides, 
they  are  bound  to  teach  the  eternal  horror  of  everlasting 
punishment. 

They  poison  the  minds  of  children  ;  they  deform  the  brain 


INTERVIEWS.  77 

and  pollute  the  imagination  by  teaching  the  frightful  and 
infamous  dogma  of  endless  misery.  Even  the  laws  of  Dela- 
ware shock  the  enlightened  public  of  to-day.  In  that  State 
they  simply  fine  and  imprison  a  man  for  expressing  his 
honest  thoughts ;  and  yet,  if  the  churches  are  right,  God 
will  damn  a  man  forever  for  the  same  offence.  The  brain 
and  heart  of  our  time  cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  ancient 
creeds.  The  Bible  must  be  revised  again.  Most  of  the 
creeds  must  be  blotted  out.  Humanity  must  take  the  place 
of  theology.  Intellectual  liberty  must  stand  in  every  pulpit. 
There  must  be  freedom  in  all  the  pews,  and  every  human 
soul  must  have  the  right  to  express   its  honest  thought. — 

Washington  correspondent,  Brooklyn  Eagle^  March  19,  1881. 

A  REPLY  TO  THE  REV.  MR.  LANSING.* 

Question.  Did  you  favor  the  sending  of  obscene  matter 
through  the  mails  as  alleged  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lansing  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  not,  and  no  honest  man  ever  thought 
that  I  did.  This  charge  is  too  malicious  and  silly  to  be 
answered.  Mr.  Lansing  knows  better.  He  has  made  this 
charge  many  times  and  he  will  make  it  again. 

Question.  Is  it  a  fact  that  there  are  thousands  of  clergy- 
men in  the  country  whom  you  would  fear  to  meet  in  fair 
debate  ? 

Answer.  No;  the  fact  is  I  would  like  to  meet  them  all 
in  one.  The  pulpit  is  not  burdened  Avith  genius.  There 
are  a  few  great  men  engaged  in  preaching,  but  they  are  not 
orthodox.  I  cannot  conceive  that  a  Freethinker  has  any- 
thing to  fear  from  the  pulpit,  except  misrepresentation.  Of 
course,  there  are  thousand  of  ministers  too  small  to  discuss 
with — ministers  who  stand  for  nothing  in  the  church— and 
with  such  clergymen  I  cannot  afford  to  discuss  anj^thing. 
If    the    Presbyterians,   or  the   Congregationalists,   or   the 

*  Rev  Isaac  J.  Lansing  of  Meriden,  Conn.,  recently  denounced  Col.  Robert  G 
Ingersoll  from  the  pulpit  of  the  Merldeu  Methodist  Church,  and  had  the  Opera 
House  clawed  against  him.  This  led  a  Union  reporter  to  show  Colonel  Ingersoll 
What  Mr.  Lansing  had  said  and  to  interrogate  him  with  the  following  result. 


78  INTERVIEWS. 

Methodists  would  select  some  man,  and  endorse  him  as 
their  champion,  I  would  like  to  meet  him  in  debate.  Such 
a  man  I  will  pay  to  discuss  with  me.  I  will  give  him  most 
excellent  wages,  and  pay  all  the  expenses  of  the  discussion 
besides.  There  is  but  one  safe  course  for  ministers — they 
must  assert.  They  must  declare.  They  must  swear  to  it 
and  stick  to  it,  but  they  must  not  try  to  reason. 

Question.  You  have  never  seen  Rev.  Mr.  Lansing.  To 
the  people  of  Meriden  and  thereabouts  he  is  well-known. 
Judging  from  what  has  been  told  you  of  his  utterances  and 
actions,  what  kind  of  a  man  would  you  take  him  to  be  ? 

Answer.  I  would  take  him  to  be  a  Christian.  He  talks 
like  one,  and  he  acts  like  one.  If  Christianity  is  right, 
Lansing  is  right.  If  salvation  depends  upon  belief,  and  if 
unbelievers  are  to  be  eternally  damned,  then  an  Infidel  has 
no  right  to  speak.  He  should  not  be  allowed  to  murder 
the  souls  of  his  fellow-men.  Lansing  does  the  best  he 
knows  hoWo  He  thinks  that  God  hates  an  unbeliever,  and 
he  tries  to  act  like  God.  Lansing  knows  that  he  must 
have  the  right  to  slander  a  man  whom  God  is  to  eternally 
damn, 

Qzcestion.  Mr.  Lansing  speaks  of  you  as  a  wolf  coming 
with  fangs  sharpened  by  three  hundred  dollars  a  night  to 
tear  the  lambs  of  his  flock.     What  do  you  say  to  that  ? 

Answer.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  often  get  three  times 
that  amount,  and  sometimes  much  more.  I  guess  his  lambs 
can  take  care  of  themselves.  I  am  not  ver>''  fond  of  mutton 
anyway.  Such  talk  Mr.  Lansing  ought  to  be  ashamed  of. 
The  idea  that  he  is  a  shepherd — that  he  is  on  guard — is 
simply  preposterous.  He  has  few  sheep  in  his  congregation 
that  know  as  little  on  the  wolf  question  as  he  does.  He 
ought  to  know  that  his  sheep  support  him — his  sheep  pro- 
tect him ;  and  without  the  sheep  poor  Lansing  would  be 
devoured  by  the  wolves  himself. 

Question.  Shall  you  sue  the  Opera  House  management  for 
breach  of  contract? 


INTERVIEWS.  79 

Answer.  I  guess  not ;  but  I  may  pay  Lansing  sometliing 
for  advertising  my  lecture.  I  suppose  Mr.  Wilcox  (who 
controls  the  Opera  House)  did  what  he  thought  was  right. 
I  hear  that  he  is  a  good  man.  He  probably  got  a  little 
frightened  and  began  to  think  about  the  day  of  judgment. 
He  could  not  help  it,  and  I  cannot  help  laughing  at  him. 

Question.  Those  in  Meriden  who  most  strongly  oppose 
you  are  radical  Republicans.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  you 
possess  the  confidence  and  friendship  of  some  of  the  most 
respected  leaders  of  that  party  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  all  the  respectable  ones  are  friends 
of  mine.  I  am  a  Republican  because  I  believe  in  the  liberty 
of  the  body,  and  I  am  an  Infidel  because  I  believe  in  the 
liberty  of  the  mind.  There  is  no  need  of  freeing  cages. 
Let  us  free  the  birds.  If  Mr.  Lansing  knew  me,  he  would 
be  a  great  friend.  He  would  probably  annoy  me  by  the 
frequency  and  length  of  his  visits. 

Question.  During  the  recent  presidential  campaign  did 
any  clergymen  denounce  you  for  your  teachings,  that  you 
are  aware  of? 

Answer.  Some  did,  but  they  would  not  if  they  had  been 
running  for  ofiice  on  the  Republican  ticket. 

Question.  What  is  most  needed  in  our  public  men  ? 

Answer.  Hearts  and  brains. 

Questio7i.  Would  people  be  2My  more  moral  solely  because 
of  a  disbelief  in  orthodox  teaching  and  in  the  Bible  as  an 
inspired  book,  in  your  opinion  ? 

Answer.  Yes ;  if  a  man  really  believes  that  God  once 
upheld  slavery;  that  he  commanded  soldiers  to  kill  women 
and  babes ;  that  he  believed  in  polygamy ;  that  he  persecuted 
for  opinion's  sake;  that  he  will  punish  forever,  and  that  he 
hates  an  unbeliever,  the  effect  in  my  judgment  will  be  bad. 
It  always  has  been  bad.  This  belief  built  the  dungeons  of 
the  Inquisition.  This  belief  made  the  Puritan  murder  the 
Quaker,  and  this  belief  has  raised  the  devil  with  Mr. 
Lansiiig. 


8o  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  there  will  ever  be  a  millennium, 
and  if  so  how  will  it  come  about  ? 

Answer.  It  will  probably  start  in  Meriden,  as  I  have  been 
informed  that  Lansing  is  going  to  leave. 

Question.  Is  there  anything  else  bearing  upon  the  question 
at  issue  or  that  would  make  good  reading,  that  I  have  for- 
gotten, that  you  would  like  to  say  ? 

Ansiver.  Yes.  Good-bye.  — 7'-*.?5'««^ay  ^7«?"<3«,  New  Haven, Coun. 
April  10,  1881. 

BEACONSFIELD,  LENT  AND  REVIVALS. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  attack  of  Dr. 
Buckley  on  you,  and  3^our  lecture  ? 

Ajiswer.  I  never  heard  of  Dr.  Buckley  until  after  I  had 
lectured  in  Brooklyn.  He  seems  to  think  that  it  was  ex- 
tremely ill  bred  in  me  to  deliver  a  lecture  on  the  "  Liberty 
of  Man,  Woman  and  Child,"  during  Lent.  Lent  is  just  as  good 
as  any  other  part  of  the  year,  and  no  part  can  be  too  good 
to  do  good.  It  was  not  a  part  of  my  object  to  hurt  the  feel- 
ings of  the  Episcopalians  and  Catholics.  If  they  think  that 
there  is  some  subtle  relation  between  hunger  and  heaven,  or 
that  faith  depends  upon,  or  is  strengthened  by  famine,  or 
that  veal,  during  Lent,  is  the  enemy  of  virtue,  or  that  beef 
breeds  blasphemy,  while  fish  feeds  faith — of  course,  all  this 
is  nothing  to  me.  They  have  a  right  to  say  that  vice 
depends  on  victuals,  sanctity  on  soup,  religion  on  rice  and 
chastity  on  cheese,  but  they  have  no  right  to  say  that  a 
lecture  on  liberty  is  an  insult  to  them  because  they  are 
hungry.  I  suppose  that  Lent  was  instituted  in  memory  of 
the  Savior's  fast.  At  one  time  it  was  supposed  that  only 
a  divine  being  could  live  forty  days  without  food.  This 
supposition  has  been  overthrown. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  by  Dr.  Tanner  to  be  utterly 
without  foundation.  What  possible  good  did  it  do  the 
world  for  Christ  to  go  without  food  for  forty  days  ?    Why 


INTERVIEWS.  8 1 

should  we  follow  such  an  example?  As  a  rule,  hungry- 
people  are  cross,  contrary,  obstinate,  peevish  and  unpleas- 
ant A  good  dinner  puts  a  man  at  peace  with  all  the  world 
— makes  him  generous,  good  natured  and  happy.  He  feels 
like  kissing  his  wife  and  children.  The  future  looks 
bright.  He  wants  to  help  the  needy.  The  good  in  him 
predominates,  and  he  wonders  that  any  man  was  ever 
stingy  or  cruel.  Your  good  cook  is  a  civilizer,  and  without 
good  food,  well  prepared,  intellectual  progress  is  simply  im- 
possible. Most  of  the  orthodox  creeds  were  born  of  bad 
cooking.  Bad  food  produced  dyspepsia,  and  dyspepsia 
produced  Calvinism,  and  Calvinism  is  the  cancer  of  Chris- 
tianity. Oatmeal  is  responsible  for  the  worst  features  of 
Scotch  Presbyterianism.  Half  cooked  beans  account  for 
the  religion  of  the  Puritans.  Fried  bacon  and  saleratus 
biscuit  underlie  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights.  Lent  is  a 
mistake,  fasting  is  a  blunder,  and  bad  cooking  is  a  crime. 

QiiestioJi.  It  is  stated  that  you  went  to  Brooklyn  while 
Beecher  and  Talmage  were  holding  revivals,  and  that  you 
did  so  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  them  up.     How  is  this  ? 

Answer.  I  had  not  the  slightest  idea  of  interfering  with 
the  revivals.  They  amounted  to  nothing.  They  were  not 
alive  enough  to  be  killed.  Surely  one  lecture  could  not 
destroy  two  revivals.  Still,  I  think  that  if  all  the  persons 
engaged  in  the  revivals  had  spent  the  same  length  of  time 
in  cleaning  the  streets,  the  good  result  would  have  been 
more  apparent.  The  truth  is,  that  the  old  way  of  convert- 
ing people  will  have  to  be  abandoned.  The  Americans  are 
getting  hard  to  scare,  and  a  revival  without  the  "scare"  is 
scarcely  worth  holding.  Such  maniacs  as  Hammond  and 
the  "Boy  Preacher"  fill  asylums  and  terrify  children. 
After  saying  what  he  has  about  hell,  Mr.  Beecher  ought  to 
know  that  he  is  not  the  man  to  conduct  a  revival.  A 
revival  sermon  with  hell  left  out — with  the  brimstone  gone — 
with  the  worm  that  never  dies,  dead,  and  the  Devil  absent — 


82  INTERVIEWS. 

is  the  broadest  farce.  Mr.  Talmage  believes  in  the  ancient 
way.  With  him  hell  is  a  burning  reality.  He  can  hear 
the  shrieks  and  groans.  He  is  of  that  order  of  mind  that 
rejoices  in  these  things.  If  he  could  only  convince  others, 
he  would  be  a  great  revivalist.  He  cannot  terrify,  he  as- 
tonishes. He  is  the  clown  of  the  horrible — one  of  Jehovah's 
jesters.  I  am  not  responsible  for  the  revival  failure  in 
Brooklyn.  I  wish  I  were.  I  would  have  the  happiness  of 
knowing  that  I  had  been  instrumental  in  preserving  the 
sanity  of  my  fellow-men. 

Question.  How  do  you  account  for  these  attacks? 

Answer.  It  was  not  so  much  what  I  said  that  excited  the 
wrath  of  the  reverend  gentlemen  as  the  fact  that  I  had  a 
great  house.  They  contrasted  their  failure  with  my  success. 
The  fact  is,  the  people  are  getting  tired  of  the  old  ideas. 
They  are  beginning  to  think  for  themselves.  Eternal  pun- 
ishment seems  to  them  like  eternal  revenge.  They  see  that 
Christ  could  not  atone  for  the  sins  of  others;  that  belief 
ought  not  to  be  rewarded  and  honest  doubt  punished  forever  ; 
that  good  deeds  are  better  than  bad  creeds,  and  that  liberty 
is  the  rightful  heritage  of  every  soul. 

Questio7i.  Were  you  an  admirer  of  Lord  Beaconsfield? 

Ajiswer.  In  some  respects.  He  was  on  our  side  during 
the  war,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Union  w^ould  be 
preserved.  Mr.  Gladstone  congratulated  Jefferson  Davis  on 
having  founded  a  new  nation.  I  shall  never  forget  Beacons- 
field  for  his  kindness,  nor  Gladstone  for  his  malice. 
Beaconsfield  was  an  intellectual  gymnast,  a  political  athlete, 
one  of  the  most  adroit  men  in  the  world.  He  had  the  per- 
sistence of  his  race.  In  spite  of  the  prejudices  of  eighteen 
hundred  years,  he  rose  to  the  highest  position  that  can  be 
occupied  by  a  citizen.  During  his  administration  England 
again  became  a  Continental  power  and  played  her  game  of 
European  chess.  I  have  never  regarded  Beaconsfield  as  a 
man  controlled  by  principle,   or  by  his  heart.     He  was 


INTERVIEWS.  83 

Strictly  a  politician.  He  always  acted  as  though  he  thought 
the  clubs  were  looking  at  him.  He  knew  all  the  arts 
belonging  to  his  trade.  He  would  have  succeeded  any- 
where, if  by  ** succeeding"  is  meant  the  attainment  of  posi- 
tion and  power.  But  after  all,  such  men  are  splendid 
failures.  They  give  themselves  and  others  a  great  deal  of 
trouble — they  wear  the  tinsel  crown  of  temporary  success 
and  then  fade  from  public  view.  They  astonish  the  pit, 
they  gain  the  applause  of  the  galleries,  but  when  the  curtain 
falls  there  is  nothing  left  to  benefit  mankind.  Beaconsfield 
held  convictions  somewhat  in  contempt.  He  had  the 
imagination  of  the  East  united  with  the  ambition  of  an 
Englishman.     With  him,  to  succeed  was  to  have  done  right. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  him  as  an  author? 

Answer.  Most  of  his  characters  are  like  himself — puppets 
moved  by  the  string  of  '  self-interest.  The  men  are  adroit, 
the  women  mostly  heartless.  They  catch  each  other  with 
false  bait.  They  have  great  worldly  wisdom.  Their  virtue 
and  vice  are  mechanical.  They  have  hearts  like  clocks — 
filled  with  wheels  and  springs.  The  author  winds  them  up. 
In  his  novels  Disraeli  allows  us  to  enter  the  greenroom  of 
his  heart  We  see  the  ropes,  the  pulleys  and  the  old 
masks.  In  all  things,  in  politics  and  in  literature,  he  was 
cold,  cunning,  accurate,  able  and  successful.  His  books 
will,  in  a  little  while,  follow  their  author  to  their  grave. 

After  all,  the  good  will  live  longest. —  Washington  correspondent, 
Brooklyn  Eagle,  April  24,  1881. 


ANSWERING  THE  NEW  YORK  MINISTERS.=»^ 

Question.  Have  you  seen  the  attacks  made  upon  you  by 
certain  ministers  of  New  York,  published  in  the  Herald 
last  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  read,  or  heard  read,  what  was  in  Monday's 
Herald.  I  do  not  know  that  you  could  hardly  call  them 
attacks.  They  are  substantially  a  repetition  of  what  the 
pulpit  has  been  saying  for  a  great  many  hundred  years,  and 
what  the  pulpit  will  say  just  so  long  as  men  are  paid  for 
suppressing  truth  and  for  defending  superstition.  One  of 
these  gentlemen  tells  the  lambs  of  his  flock  that  three 
thousand  men  and  a  few  women — probably  with  quite  an 
emphasis  on  the  word  "  Few  " — gave  one  dollar  each  to 
hear  their  Maker  cursed  and  their  Savior  ridiculed.  Prob- 
ably nothing  is  so  hard  for  the  average  preacher  to  bear  as 
the  fact  that  people  are  not  only  willing  to  hear  the  other 
side,  but  absolutely  anxious  to  pay  for  it.  The  dollar  that 
these  people  paid  hurt  their  feelings  vastly  more  than  what 
was  said  after  they  were  in.  Of  course,  it  is  a  frightful 
commentary  on  the  average  intellect  of  the  pulpit  that  a 
minister  cannot  get  so  large  an  audience  when  he  preaches 
for  nothing,  as  an  Infidel  can  draw  at  a  dollar  a  head.  If 
I  depended  upon  a  contribution  box,  or  upon  passing  a 
saucer  that  would  come  back  to  the  stage  enriched  with  a 
few  five  cent  pieces,  eight  or  ten  dimes,  and  a  lonesome 

*  Ever  since  Colonel  Ingersoll  began  the  delivery  of  his  lecture  called  The  Great 
Infidels.^  the  ministers  of  the  country  have  made  him  the  subject  of  special  attack. 
One  week  ago  last  Sunday  the  majority  of  the  leading  ministers  in  New  York  made 
ixjpiies  to  Ingersoir  s  latest  lecture.  What  he  has  to  say  to  thase  replies  will  be 
iound  in  a  report  of  an  interview  with  Colonel  Ingersoll.  No  man  is  harder  to  pin 
do'^rn  Sot  a  long  talk  than  the  Colonel.  He  is  so  beset  with  visitors  and  eager  office 
SeeJier.  anxious  for  his  help,  that  he  can  hardly  find  five  minutes  unoccupied  during 
an  en  tire  day.  Through  the  shelter  of  a  private  room  and  the  ^ardiaiiship  of  a 
Eton  cc.ored  servant,  the  Colonel  Avas  able  to  escape  the  crowd  ot  seekers  after  his 
persor-a.  diiarity  long  enough  to  give  him  time  to  answer  sorae  of  the  ministerial 
esguicents  advanced  against  him  in  New  York.  (84) 


INTERVIEWS.  85 

quarter,  these  gentlemen  would,  in  all  probability,  imagine 
Infidelity  was  not  to  be  feared. 

The  churches  were  all  open  on  that  Sunday,  and  all 
could  go  who  desired.  Yet  they  were  not  full,  and  the  pews 
were  nearly  as  empty  of  people  as  the  pulpit  of  ideas.  The 
truth  is,  the  story  is  growing  old,  the  ideas  somewhat  moss- 
covered,  and  everything  has  a  wrinkled  and  withered 
appearance.  This  gentleman  says  that  these  people  went 
to  hear  their  Maker  cursed  and  their  Savior  ridiculed.  Is 
it  possible  that  in  a  city  where  so  many  steeples  pierce  the 
air,  and  hundreds  of  sermons  are  preached  every  Sunday, 
there  are  three  thousand  men,  and  a  few  women,  so  anxious 
to  hear  "their  Maker  cursed  and  their  Savior  ridiculed" 
that  they  are  willing  to  pay  a  dollar  each?  The  gentleman 
knew  that  nobody  cursed  anybody's  Maker.  He  knew 
that  the  statement  was  utterly  false  and  without  the  slight- 
est foundation.  He  also  knew  that  nobody  had  ridiculed 
the  Savior  of  anybody,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  I  had 
paid  a  greater  tribute  to  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  than 
any  minister  in  New  York  has  the  capacity  to  do.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  not  cursing  the  Maker  of  anybody  to  say  that 
the  God  described  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not  the  real 
God.  Certainly  it  is  not  cursing  God  to  declare  that  the 
real  God  never  sanctioned  slavery  or  polygamy,  or  com- 
manded wars  of  extermination,  or  told  a  husband  to 
separate  from  his  wife  if  she  differed  with  him  in  religion. 
The  people  who  say  these  things  of  God — if  there  is  any 
God  at  all — do  what  little  there  is  in  their  power,  unwit- 
tingly of  course,  to  destroy  his  reputation.  But  I  have 
done  something  to  rescue  the  reputation  of  the  Diety 
from  the  slanders  of  the  pulpit.  If  there  is  any  God,  I 
expect  to  find  myself  credited  on  the  heavenly  books  for 
my  defence  of  him.  I  did  say  that  our  civilization  is  due 
not  to  piety,  but  to  Infidelity.  I  did  say  that  every  great 
reformer  had  been  denounced  as  an  Infidel  in  his  day  and 


S6  INTERVIEWS. 

generation.  I  did  say  that  Christ  was  an  Infidel,  and  that 
he  was  treated  in  his  day  very  much  as  the  orthodox 
preachers  treat  an  honest  man  now.  I  did  say  that  he  was 
tried  for  blasphemy  and  crucified  by  bigots.  I  did  say 
that  he  hated  and  despised  the  church  of  his  time,  and 
that  he  denounced  the  most  pious  people  of  Jerusalem  as 
thieves  and  vipers.  And  I  suggested  that  should  he  come 
again  he  might  have  occasion  to  repeat  the  remarks  that 
he  then  made.  At  the  same  time  I  admitted  that  there  are 
thousands  and  thousands  of  Christians  who  are  exceed- 
ingly good  people.  I  never  did  pretend  that  the  fact  that 
a  man  was  a  Christian  even  tended  to  show  that  he  was 
a  bad  man.  Neither  have  I  ever  insisted  that  the  fact  that 
a  man  is  an  Infidel  even  tends  to  show  what,  in  other 
respects,  his  character  is.  But  I  always  have  said,  and  I 
always  expect  to  say,  that  a  Christian  who  does  not  believe 
in  absolute  intellectual  liberty  is  a  curse  to  mankind,  and 
that  an  Infidel  who  does  believe  in  absolute  intellectual 
liberty  is  a  blessing  to  this  world.  We  cannot  expect  all 
Infidels  to  be  good,  nor  all  Christians  to  be  bad,  and  we 
might  make  some  mistakes  even  if  we  selected  these  people 
ourselves.  It  is  admitted  by  the  Christians  that  Christ 
made  a  great  mistake  when  he  selected  Judas.  This  was  a 
mistake  of  over  eight  per  cent. 

Chaplain  Newman  takes  pains  to  compare  some  great 
Christians  with  some  great  Infidels.  He  compares  Wash- 
ington with  Julian,  and  insists,  I  suppose,  that  Washington 
was  a  great  Christian.  Certainly  he  is  not  very  familiar 
with  the  history  of  Washington,  or  he  never  would  claim 
that  he  was  particularly  distinguished  in  his  day  for  what 
is  generally  known  as  vital  piety.  That  he  went  through 
the  ordinary  forms  of  Christianity  nobody  disputes.  That 
he  listened  to  sermons  without  paying  any  particular  at- 
tention to  them,  no  one  will  deny.  Julian,  of  course,  was 
somewhat  prejudiced  against  Christianity,  but  tkat  he  was 


INTERVIEWS.  87 

one  of  tlie  greatest  men  of  antiquity  no  one  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  Rome  can  honestly  dispute.  When  he 
was  made  emperor  he  found  at  the  palace  hundreds  of 
gentlemen  who  acted  as  barbers,  hair-combers,  and 
brushers  for  the  emperor.  He  dismissed  them  all,  remark- 
ing that  he  was  able  to  wash  himself.  These  dismissed 
office-holders  started  the  story  that  he  was  dirty  in  his 
habits,  and  a  minister  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  found 
silly  enough  to  believe  the  story.  Another  thing  that  prob- 
ably got  him  into  disrepute  in  that  day,  he  had  no  private 
chaplains.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Julian  was  forced  to  pretend 
that  he  was  a  Christian  in  order  to  save  his  life.  The 
Christians  of  that  day  were  of  such  a  loving  nature  that 
any  man  who  differed  with  them  was  forced  to  either  fall  a 
victim  to  their  ferocity  or  seek  safety  in  subterfuge.  The 
real  crime  that  Julian  committed,  and  the  only  one  that 
has  burned  itself  into  the  very  heart  and  conscience  of  the 
Christian  world,  is,  that  he  transferred  the  revenues  of 
Christian  churches  to  heathen  priests.  Whoever  stands 
between  a  priest  and  his  salary  will  find  that  he  has  com- 
mitted the  unpardonable  sin  commonly  known  as  the  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  gentleman  also  compares  Luther  with  Voltaire.  If 
he  will  read  the  life  of  Luther  by  Lord  Brougham,  he  will 
find  that  in  his  ordinary  conversation  he  was  exceedingly 
low  and  vulgar,  and  that  no  respectable  English  publisher 
could  be  found  who  would  soil  paper  with  the  translation. 
If  he  will  take  the  pains  to  read  an  essay  by  Macaulay,  he 
will  find  that  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Luther  there 
were  more  Catholics  than  when  he  was  born.  And  that 
twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Voltaire  there  were  millions 
less  than  when  he  was  born.  If  he  will  take  just  a  few 
moments  to  think,  he  will  find  that  the  last  victory  of  Pro- 
testantism was  w^on  in  Holland  ;  that  there  has  never  been 
one  since,  and  will  never  be  another.     If  he  would  really 


88  INTERVIEWS. 

like  to  think,  and  enjoy  for  a  few  moments  the  luxury  of 

having  an  idea,  let  him  ponder  for  a  little  while  over  the 
instructive  fact  that  languages  having  their  root  in  the 
Latin  have  generally  been  spoken  in  Catholic  countries ; 
and  that  those  languages  having  their  root  in  the  ancient 
German  are  now  mostly  spoken  by  people  of  Protestant 
proclivities.  It  may  occur  to  him,  after  thinking  of  this  a 
while,  that  there  is  something  deeper  in  the  question  than 
he  has  as  yet  perceived,  Luther's  last  victory,  as  I  said 
before,  was  in  Holland ;  but  the  victory  of  Voltaire  goes 
on  from  day  to  day.  Protestantism  is  not  holding  its  own 
with  Catholicism,  even  in  the  United  States.  I  saw  the 
other  day  the  statistics,  I  believe,  of  the  city  of  Chicago, 
showing  that,  while  the  city  had  increased  two  or  three 
hundred  per  cent.,  Protestantism  had  lagged  behind  at  the 
rate  of  twelve  per  cent.  I  am  willing  for  one,  to  have  the 
whole  question  depend  upon  a  comparison  of  the  worth 
and  work  of  Voltaire  and  Luther.  It  may  be,  too,  that  the 
gentleman  forgot  to  tell  us  that  Luther  himself  gave  con- 
sent to  a  person  high  in  ofl&ce  to  have  two  wives,  but 
prudently  suggested  to  him  that  he  had  better  keep  it  as 
still  as  possible.  Luther  was,  also,  a  believer  in  a  personal 
Devil.  He  thought  that  deformed  children  had  been  be- 
gotten by  an  evil  spirit.  On  one  occasion  he  told  a  mother 
that,  in  his  judgment,  she  had  better  drown  her  child  ; 
that  he  had  no  doubt  the  Devil  was  its  father.  This  same 
Luther  made  this  observation :  ''  Universal  toleration  is 
universal  error,  and  universal  error  is  universal  hell." 
From  this  you  will  see  that  he  was  an  exceedingly  good 
man,  but  mistaken  upon  many  questions.  So,  too,  he 
laughed  at  the  Copernican  system,  and  wanted  to  know  if 
these  fool  astronomers  could  undo  the  work  of  God.  He 
probably  knew  as  little  about  science  as  the  reverend  gen- 
tlemen does  about  history. 

Question,    Does    he  compare    any    other    Infidels  with 
Christians  ? 


INTERVIEWSo  89 

Answer.  Oh,  yes ;  lie  compares  Lord  Bacon  with  Diderot. 
I  have  never  claimed  that  Diderot  was  a  saint.  I  have 
simply  insisted  that  he  was  a  great  man  ;  that  he  was 
grand  enough  to  say  that  "  incredulity  is  the  beginning  of 
philosophy  ;  "  that  he  had  sense  enough  to  know  that  the 
God  described  by  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  of  his  day 
was  simply  an  impossible  monster ;  and  that  he  also  had 
the  brain  to  see  that  the  little  selfish  heaven  occupied  by  a 
few  monks  and  nuns  and  idiots  that  they  had  fleeced,  was 
hardly  worth  going  to ;  in  other  words,  that  he  was  a  man 
of  common  sense,  greatly  in  advance  of  his  time,  and  that 
he  did  what  he  could  to  increase  the  sum  of  human  enjoy- 
ment to  the  end  that  there  might  be  more  happiness  in  this 
world. 

The  gentleman  compares  him  with  Lord  Bacon,  and  yet, 
if  he  will  read  the  trials  of  that  day — I  think  in  the  year 
1620 — he  will  find  that  the  Christian  Lord  Bacon,  the  pious 
Lord  Bacon,  was  charged  with  receiving  pay  for  his 
opinions,  and,  in  some  instances,  pay  from  both  sides ;  that 
the  Christian  Lord  Bacon,  at  first  upon  his  honor  as  a 
Christian  lord,  denied  the  whole  business ;  that  afterward 
the  Christian  Lord  Bacon,  upon  his  honor  as  a  Christian 
lord,  admitted  the  truth  of  the  whole  business,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  Christian  Lord  Bacon  was  convicted  and 
sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of  forty  thousand  pounds,  and  ren- 
dered infamous  and  incapable  of  holding  an}^  ofl&ce.  Now, 
understand  me,  I  do  not  think  Bacon  took  bribes  because 
he  was  a  Christian,  because  there  have  been  many  Chris- 
tian judges  perfectly  honest ;  but,  if  the  statement  of  the 
reverend  gentleman  of  New  York  is  true,  his  being  a 
Christian  did  not  prevent  his  taking  bribes.  And  right 
here  allow  me  to  thank  the  gentleman  with  all  my  heart 
for  having  spoken  of  Lord  Bacon  in  this  connection.  I 
have  always  admired  the  genius  of  Bacon,  and  have  always 
thought  of  his  fall  with  an  aching  heart,  and  would  not 


90 


INTERVIEWS. 


now  have  spoken  of  his  crime  had  not  his  character  been 
flung  in  my  face  by  a  gentleman  who  asks  his  God  to  kill 
me  for  having  expressed  my  honest  thought. 

The  same  gentleman  compares  Newton  with  Spinoza.  In 
the  first  place,  there  is  no  ground  of  parallel.  Newton  was 
a  very  great  man  and  a  very  justly  celebrated  mathemati- 
cian. As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  is  not  celebrated  for  having 
discovered  the  law  of  gravitation.  That  was  known  for 
thousands  of  years  before  he  was  born  ;  and  if  the  reverend 
gentleman  would  read  a  little  more  he  would  find  that 
Newton's  discovery  was  not  that  there  is  such  a  law  as 
gravitation,  but  that  bodies  attract  each  other  "  with  a 
force  proportional  directly  to  the  quantity  of  matter  they 
contain,  and  inversely  to  the  squares  of  their  distances."  I 
do  not  think  he  made  the  discoveries  on  account  of  his 
Christianity,  Laplace  was  certainly  in  many  respects  as 
great  a  mathematician  and  astronomer,  but  he  was  not  a 
Christian. 

Descartes  was  certainly  not  much  inferior  to  Newton  as 
a  mathematician,  and  thousands  insist  that  he  was  his 
superior ;  yet  he  was  not  a  Christian.  Euclid,  if  I  remem- 
ber right,  was  not  a  Christian,  and  yet  he  had  quite  a  turn 
for  mathematics.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Christianity  got  its 
idea  of  algebra  from  the  Mohammedans,  and,  without 
algebra,  astronomical  knowledge  of  to-day  would  have  been 
impossible.  Christianity  did  not  even  invent  figures.  We 
got  those  from  the  Arabs.  The  very  word  "  algebra  "  is 
Arabic.  The  decimal  sj^stem,  I  believe,  however,  was  due 
to  a  German,  but  whether  he  was  a  Christian  or  not,  I  do 
not  know. 

We  find  that  the  Chinese  calculated  eclipses  long 
before  Christ  was  born;  and,  exactness  being  the  rule 
at  that  time,  there  is  an  account  of  two  astronomers  having 
been  beheaded  for  failing  to  tell  the  coming  of  an  eclipse 
to  the  minute;  yet   they  were  not   Christians.     There  is 


INTERVIEWS.  gt 

another  fact  connected  with  Newton,  and  that  is  that  ke 
wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Book  of  Revelation.  The 
probability  is  that  a  sillier  commentary  was  never  written. 
It  was  so  perfectly  absurd  and  laughable  that  some  one — I 
believe  it  was  Voltaire — said  that  while  Newton  had  ex- 
cited the  envy  of  the  intellectual  world  by  his  mathemat- 
ical accomplishments,  it  had  gotten  even  with  him  the 
moment  his  commentaries  were  published.  Spinoza  was 
not  a  mathematician,  particularly.  He  was  a  metaphysi- 
cian, an  honest  thinker,  whose  influence  is  felt  and  will  be 
felt  so  long  as  these  great  questions  have  the  slightest  in- 
terest for  the  human  brain. 

He  also  compares  Chalmers  with  Hume.  Chalmers  gained 
his  notoriety  from  preaching  what  are  known  as  the  astrono- 
mical sermons,  and,  I  suppose,  was  quite  a  preacher  in  his 
day. 

But  Hume  was  a  thinker,  and  his  works  will  live  for 
ages  after  Mr.  Chalmers'  sermons  will  have  been  forgotten. 
Mr,  Chalmers  has  never  been  prominent  enough  to  have 
been  well  known  by  many  people.  He  may  have  been  an 
exceedingly  good  man,  and  derived,  during  his  life,  great 
consolation  from  a  belief  in  the  damnation  of  infants. 

Mr,  Newman  also  compares  Wesley  with  Thomas  Paine. 
When  Thomas  Paine  was  in  favor  of  human  liberty,  Wesley 
was  against  it.  Thomas  Paine  wrote  a  pamphlet  called 
"  Common  Sense,"  urging  the  colonies  to  separate  themselves 
from  Great  Britain.  Wesley  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  other 
side.  He  was  the  enemy  of  human  liberty;  and  if  his 
advice  could  have  been  followed  we  would  have  been  the 
colonies  of  Great  Britain  still.  We  never  would  have  had  a 
President  in  need  of  a  private  chaplain.  Mr.  Wesley  had 
not  a  scientific  mind.  He  preached  a  sermon  once  on  the 
cause  and  cure  ot  earthquakes,  taking  tne  ground  that  eann- 
quakes  were  caused  by  sins,  and  that  the  only  way  to  stop 
them  was  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     He  also  laid 


92  INTERVIEWS. 

down  some  excellent  rules  for  rearing  children,  that  is,  from 
a  Methodist  standpoint.     His  rules  amounted  to  about  this : 

First.    Never  give  them  what  they  want^ 

Second,  Never  give  them  what  you  intend  to  give  them, 
at  the  time  they  want  it. 

Third.  Break  their  wills  at  the  earliest  possible  moment 
Mr.  Wesley  made  every  family  an  inquisition,  every  father 
and  mother  inquisitors,  and  all  the  children  helpless  victims^ 
One  of  his  homes  would  give  an  exceedingly  vivid  idea  of 
hell.  At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Wesley  was  a  believer  in  witches 
and  wizards,  and  knew  all  about  the  Devil.  At  his  request 
God  performed  many  miracles.  On  several  occasions  he 
cured  his  horse  of  lameness.  On  others,  dissipated  Mr. 
Wesley's  headaches.  Now  and  then  he  put  off  rain  on  ac- 
count of  a  camp  meeting,  and  at  other  times  stopped  the 
wind  blowing  at  the  special  request  of  Mr.  Wesley=  I  have 
no  doubt  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  honest  in  all  this,—  just 
as  honest  as  he  was  mistaken.  And  I  also  admit  that  he  was 
the  founder  of  a  church  that  does  extremely  well  in  new 
countries,  and  that  thousands  of  Methodists  have  been  ex- 
ceedingly good  men.  But  I  deny  that  he  ever  did  anything 
for  human  liberty.  While  Mr.  Wesley  was  fighting  the 
Devil  and  giving  his  experience  with  witches  and  wizards, 
Thomas  Paine  helped  to  found  a  free  nation,  helped  to  enrich 
the  air  with  another  flag.  Wesley  was  right  on  one  thing, 
though.  He  was  opposed  to  slavery,  and,  I  believe,  called  it 
the  sum  of  all  villainies,  l  nave  always  been  obliged  to  him 
for  that.  I  do  not  think  he  said  it  because  he  was  a  Metho- 
dist ;  but  Methodism,  as  he  understood  it,  did  not  prevent 
his  saying  it,  and  Methodism  as  others  understood  it,  did 
not  prevent  men  from  being  slaveholders,  did  not  prevent 
them  from  selling  babes  from  mothers,  and  in  the  name  of 
God  beating  the  naked  back  of  toil.  I  think,  on  the  whole, 
Paine  did  more  for  the  world  than  Mr.  Wesley.  The  differ- 
ence between  an  average  Methodist  and  an  average  Episco- 


INTERVIEWS.  93 

palian  is  not  worth  quarreling  about.  But  the  difference  be- 
tween a  man  who  believes  in  despotism  and  one  who  believes 
in  liberty  is  almost  infinite.  Wesley  changed  Episcopalians 
into  Methodists ;  Paine  turned  lickspittles  into  men.  Let  it 
be  understood,  once  for  all,  that  I  have  never  claimed  that 
Paine  was  perfect.  I  was  very  glad  that  the  reverend  gen- 
tleman admitted  that  he  was  a  patriot  and  the  foe  of  tyrants ; 
that  he  sympathized  with  the  oppressed,  and  befriended  the 
helpless  ;  that  he  favored  religious  toleration,  and  that  he 
weakened  the  power  of  the  Catholic  Church.  I  am  glad  that 
he  made  these  admissions.  Whenever  it  can  be  truthfully 
said  of  a  man  that  he  loved  his  country,  hated  tyranny, 
sympathized  with  the  oppressed,  and  befriended  the  helpless, 
nothing  more  is  necessary.  If  God  can  afford  to  damn  such 
a  man,  such  a  man  can  afford  to  be  damned.  While  Paine 
was  the  foe  of  tyrants.  Christians  were  the  tyrants.  When 
he  sympathized  with  the  oppressed,  the  oppressed  were  the 
victims  of  Christians.  When  he  befriended  the  helpless,  the 
helpless  were  the  victims  of  Christians,  Paine  never  founded 
an  inquisition ;  never  tortured  a  human  being  ;  never  hoped 
that  anybody's  tongue  would  be  paralyzed,  and  was  always 
opposed  to  private  chaplains. 

It  might  be  well  for  the  reverend  gentleman  to  continue 
his  comparisons,  and  find  eminent  Christians  to  put,  for  in- 
stance, along  with  Humboldt,  the  Shakespeare  of  science ; 
somebody  by  the  side  of  Darwin,  as  a  naturalist ;  some  gen- 
tleman in  England  to  stand  with  Tyndall,  or  Huxley ;  some 
Christian  German  to  stand  with  Haeckel  and  Helmholtz. 
May  be  he  knows  some  Christian  statesman  that  he  would 
compare  with  Gambetta.  I  would  advise  him  to  continue 
his  parallels. 

Question.  What  have  yoTi  to  say  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  ? 

Answer.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  is  a  great  friend  of  mine. 
I  am  extremely  sorry  to  find  that  he  still  believes  in  a  per- 
sonal Devil,  and  I  greatly  rerret  that  he  imagines  that  this 


94  INTERVIEWS. 

Devil  has  so  much  power  that  he  can  take  possession  of  a 
human  being  and  deprive  God  of  their  services.  It  is  in 
sorrow  and  not  in  anger,  that  I  find  that  he  still  believes  in 
this  ancient  superstition.  I  also  regret  that  he  imagines  that 
I  am  leading  young  men  to  eternal  ruin.  It  occurs  to  me 
that  if  there  is  an  infinite  God,  he  ought  not  to  allow  anybody 
to  lead  young  men  to  eternal  ruin.  If  anything  I  have  said, 
or  am  going  to  sa3%  has  a  tendency  to  lead  young  men  to 
eternal  ruin,  I  hope  that  if  there  is  a  God  with  the  power  to 
prevent  me,  he  will  use  it.  Dr.  Fulton  admits  that  in  politics 
I  am  on  the  right  side.  I  presume  he  makes  this  concession 
because  he  is  a  Republican.  I  am  in  favor  of  universal 
education,  of  absolute  intellectual  liberty.  I  am  in  favor, 
also,  of  equal  rights  to  all.  As  I  have  said  before  we  have 
spent  millions  and  millions  of  dollars  and  rivers  of  blood  to 
free  the  bodies  of  men ;  in  other  words,  we  have  been  free- 
ing the  cages.  My  proposition  now  is  to  give  a  little  liberty 
to  the  birds.  I  am  not  willing  to  stop  where  a  man  can 
simply  reap  the  fruit  of  his  hand.  I  wish  him,  also,  to  en- 
joy the  liberty  of  his  brain.  I  am  not  against  any  truth  in 
the  New  Testament.  I  did  say  that  I  objected  to  religion 
because  it  made  enemies  and  not  friends.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
says  that  is  one  reason  why  he  likes  religion.  Dr.  Fulton 
tells  me  that  the  Bible  is  the  gift  of  God  to  man.  He  also 
tells  me  that  the  Bible  is  true,  and  that  God  is  its  author. 
If  the  Bible  is  true  and  God  is  its  author,  then  God  was  in 
favor  of  slavery  four  thousand  years  ago.  He  was  also  in 
favor  of  polygamy  and  religious  intolerance.  In  other 
words,  four  thousand  years  ago  he  occupied  the  exact  posi- 
tion the  Devil  is  supposed  to  occupy  now.  If  the  Bible 
teaches  anything  it  teaches  man  to  enslave  his  brother,  that 
is  to  say,  if  his  brother  is  a  heathen.  The  God  of  the  Bible 
always  hated  heathens.  Dr.  Fulton  also  says  that  the  Bible 
is  the  basis  of  all  law.  Yet,  if  the  Legislature  of  New  York 
would  re-enact  next  winter  the  Mosaic  code,  the  members 


INTERVIEWS.  95 

might  consider  tliemselves  lucky  if  they  were  not  hung  upon 
their  return  home.  Probably  Dr.  Fulton  thinks  that  had 
it  not  been  for  the  Ten  Commandments,  nobody  would  ever 
have  thought  that  stealing  was  wrong.  I  have  always 
had  an  idea  that  men  objected  to  stealing  because  the  indus- 
trious did  not  wish  to  support  the  idle ;  and  I  have  a  notion 
that  there  has  always  been  a  law  against  murder,  because  a 
large  majority  of  people  have  always  objected  to  being  mur- 
dered. If  he  will  read  his  Old  Testament  with  care,  he 
will  find  that  God  violated  most  of  his  own  commandments 
— all  except  that  "Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  God  before 
me,"  and,  may  be,  the  commandment  against  work  on  the 
Sabbath  day.  With  these  two  exceptions  I  am  satisfied  that 
God  himself  violated  all  the  rest.  He  told  his  chosen  people 
to  rob  the  Gentiles ;  that  violated  the  commandment  against 
stealing.  He  said  himself  that  he  had  sent  out  lying 
spirits ;  that  certainly  was  a  violation  of  another  command- 
ment. He  ordered  soldiers  to  kill  men,  women  and  babes ; 
that  was  a  violation  of  another.  He  also  told  them  to  divide 
the  maidens  among  the  soldiers ;  that  was  a  substantial  vio- 
lation of  another.  One  of  the  commandments  was  that  j^ou 
should  not  covet  your  neighbor's  property.  In  that  command- 
ment you  will  find  that  a  man's  wife  is  put  on  an  equality 
with  his  ox.  Yet  his  chosen  people  were  allowed  not  only 
to  covet  the  property  of  the  Gentiles,  but  to  take  it.  If  Dr. 
Fulton  will  read  a  little  more,  he  will  find  that  all  the  good 
laws  in  the  Decalogue  had  been  in  force  in  Egypt  a  cen- 
tury before  Moses  was  born.  He  will  find  that  like  laws 
and  many  better  ones  were  in  force  in  India  and  China,  long 
before  Moses  knew  what  a  bulrush  was.  If  he  will  think  a 
little  while,  he  will  find  that  one  of  the  Ten  Commandments, 
the  one  on  the  subject  of  graven  images,  was  bad.  The  re- 
sult of  that  was  that  Palestine  never  produced  a  painter,  or 
a  sculptor,  and  that  no  Jew  became  famous  in  art  until  long 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     A  commandment  that 


q6  interviews. 

robs  a  people  of  painting  and  statuary  is  not  a  good  one. 
The  idea  of  the  Bible  being  the  basis  of  law  is  almost  toe 
silly  to  be  seriously  refuted.  I  admit  that  I  did  say  that 
Shakespeare  was  the  greatest  man  who  ever  lived ;  and  Dr. 
Fulton  says  in  regard  to  this  statement,  "  What  foolishness ! " 
He  then  proceeds  to  insult  his  audience  by  telling  them  that 
while  many  of  them  have  copies  of  Shakespeare's  works  in 
their  houses,  they  have  not  read  twenty  pages  of  them.  This 
fact  may  account  for  their  attending  his  church  and  being 
satisfied  with  that  sermon.  I  do  not  believe  to-day  that 
Shakespeare  is  more  influential  than  the  Bible,  but  what  in- 
fluence Shakespeare  has,  is  for  good.  No  man  can  read  it 
without  having  his  intellectual  wealth  increased.  When 
you  read  it,  it  is  not  necessary  to  throw  away  your  reason. 
Neither  will  you  be  damned  if  you  do  not  understand  it.  It 
is  a  book  that  appeals  to  everything  in  the  human  brain.  In 
that  book  can  be  found  the  wisdom  of  all  ages.  Long  after 
the  Bible  has  passed  out  of  existence,  the  name  of  Shakes- 
peare will  lead  the  intellectual  roster  of  the  world.  Dr. 
Fulton  says  there  is  not  one  word  in  the  Bible  that  teaches 
that  slavery  or  polygamy  is  right.  He  also  states  that  I 
know  it.  If  language  has  meaning — if  words  have  sense, 
or  the  power  to  convey  thought, — what  did  God  mean  when 
he  told  the  Israelites  to  buy  of  the  heathen  round  about,  and 
that  the  heathen  should  be  their  bondmen  and  bondmaids 
forever  ? 

What  did  God  mean  when  he  said,  If  a  man  strike 
his  servant  so  that  he  dies,  he  should  not  be  punished,  be- 
cause his  servant  was  his  money.  Passages  like  these  can 
be  quoted  beyond  the  space  that  any  paper  is  willing  to  give. 
Yet  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  denies  that  the  Old  Testament  up- 
holds slavery.  I  would  like  to  ask  him  if  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  in  favor  of  religious  toleration  ?  If  God  wrote  the 
Old  Testament  and  afterward  came  upon  the  earth  as  Jesus 
Christ,  and  taught  a  new  religion,  and  the  Jews  crucified 


INTERVIEWS.  97^ 

him,  was  this  not  in  accordance  with  his  own  law,  and  was 
he  not,  after  all,  the  victim  of  himself  ? 

Question.  What  about  the  other  ministers? 

Answer.  Well,  I  see  in  the  Herald  that  some  ten  have  said 
they  would  reply  to  me.  I  have  selected  the  two,  simply  be- 
cause they  came  first.  I  think  they  are  about  as  poor  as  any; 
and  yon  know  it  is  natural  to  attack  those  who  are  the  easiest 
answered.  All  these  ministers  are  now  acting  as  my  agents, 
and  are  doing  me  all  the  good  they  can  by  saying  all  the 
bad  things  about  me  they  can  think  of.  They  imagine  that 
their  congregations  have  not  grown,  and  they  talk  to  them 
as  though  they  were  living  in  the  seventeenth  instead  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  The  truth  is,  the  pews  are  bej^ond  the 
pulpit,  and  the  modern  sheep  are  now  protecting  the  shep- 
herds. 

QuesHo7t.  Have  you  noticed  a  great  change  in  public 
sentiment  in  the  last  three  or  four  years  ? 

Answer,  Yes,  I  think  there  are  ten  times  as  many  Infidels 
to-day  as  there  were  ten  years  ago.  I  am  amazed  at  the 
great  change  that  has  taken  place  in  public  opinion.  The 
churches  are  not  getting  along  well.  There  are  hundreds 
and  hundreds  who  have  not  had  a  new  member  in  a  year. 
The  young  men  are  not  satisfied  with  the  old  ideas.  They 
find  that  the  church,  after  all,  is  opposed  to  learning ;  that 
it  is  the  enemy  of  progress;  that  it  saj^s  to  every  young  man, 
"Go  slow.  Don't  allow  your  knowledge  to  puff  you  up. 
Recollect  that  reason  is  a  dangerous  thing.  You  had  better 
be  a  little  ignorant  here  for  the  sake  of  being  an  angel  here- 
after, than  quite  a  smart  3^oung  man  and  get  damned  at  last." 
The  church  warns  them  against  Humboldt  and  Darwin,  and 
tells  them  how  much  nobler  it  is  to  come  from  mud  than 
from  monkeys;  that  they  were  made  from  mud.  Every 
college  professor  is  afraid  to  tell  what  he  thinks,  and  every 
student  detects  the  covv'ardice.  The  result  is  that  the  young 
men  have  lost  confidence  in  the  creeds  of  the  day  and  pro- 


g8  INTERVIEWS. 

pose  to  do  a  little  thinking  for  themselves.  They  still  have 
a  kind  of  tender  pity  for  the  old  folks,  and  pretend  to  believe 
some  things  they  do  not,  rather  than  hurt  grandmother's 
feelings.  In  the  presence  of  the  preachers  they  talk  about 
the  weather  and  other  harmless  subjects,  for  fear  of  bruising 
the  spirit  of  their  pastor.  Every  minister  likes  to  consider 
himself  as  a  brave  shepherd  leading  the  lambs  through  the 
green  pastures  and  defending  them  at  night  from  Infidel 
wolves.  All  this  he  does  for  a  certain  share  of  the  wool. 
Others  regard  the  church  as  a  kind  of  social  organization,  as 
a  good  way  to  get  into  society.  They  wish  to  attend  socia- 
bles, drink  tea,  and  contribute  for  the  conversion  of  the  hea- 
then. It  is  always  so  pleasant  to  think  that  there  is  somebody 
worse  than  you  are,  whose  reformation  you  can  help  pay  for. 
I  find,  too,  that  the  young  women  are  getting  tired  of  the  old 
doctrines,  and  that  everywhere,  all  over  this  country,  the 
power  of  the  pulpit  wanes  and  weakens.  I  find  in  my  lec- 
tures that  the  applause  is  just  in  proportion  to  the  radicalism 
of  the  thought  expressed.  Our  war  was  a  great  educator, 
when  the  whole  people  of  the  North  rose  up  grandly  in  favor 
of  human  liberty.  For  many  years  the  great  question  of 
human  rights  was  discussed  from  every  stump.  Every 
paper  was  filled  with  splendid  sentiments.  An  application 
of  these  doctrines — doctrines  born  in  war — will  forever  do 
away  with  the  bondage  of  superstition.  When  man  has  been 
free  in  body  for  a  little  time,  he  will  become  free  in  mind, 
and  the  man  who  says, "I  have  an  equal  right  with  other 
men  to  work  and  reap  the  reward  of  my  labor,"  will  say,  **  I 
have,  also,  an  equal  right  to  think  and  reap  the  reward  of 
my  thought." 

In  old  times  there  was  a  great  difference  between  a  clergy- 
man and  a  layman.  The  clergyman  was  educated;  the 
peasant  was  ignorant.  The  tables  have  been  turned.  The 
thought  of  the  world  is  with  the  laymen.  They  are  the 
inteP.gctual  pioneers,  the  meiitil  leaders,  and  the  ministers 


INTERVIEWS.  99 

are  following  on  behind,  predicting  failure  and  disaster,  sigh- 
ing for  the  good  old  times  when  their  word  ended  discussion. 
There  is  another  good  thing,  and  that  is  the  revision  of  the 
Bible.  Hundreds  of  passages  have  been  found  to  be  inter- 
polations, and  future  revisers  will  find  hundreds  more.  The 
foundation  crumbles.  That  book,  called  the  basis  of  all  law 
and  civilization,  has  to  be  civilized  itself.  We  have  out- 
grown it.  Our  laws  are  better;  our  institutions  grander; 
our  objects  and  aims  nobler  and  higher. 

Question.  Do  many  people  write  to  you  upon  this  subject ; 
and  what  spirit  do  they  manifest  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  get  a  great  many  anonymous  letters — some 
letters  in  which  God  is  asked  to  strike  me  dead,  others  of  an 
exceedingly  insulting  character,  others  almost  idiotic,  others 
exceedingly  malicious,  and  others  insane,  others  written  in 
an  exceedingly  good  spirit,  winding  up  with  the  information 
that  I  must  certainly  be  damned.  Others  express  wonder 
that  God  allowed  me  to  live  at  all,  and  that,  having  made 
the  mistake,  he  does  not  instantly  correct  it  by  killing  me. 
Others  prophesy  that  I  will  yet  be  a  minister  of  the  gospel; 
but,  as  there  has  never  been  any  softening  of  the  brain  in 
our  family,  I  imagine  that  the  prophecy  will  never  be  ful- 
filled. Lately,  on  opening  a  letter  and  seeing  that  it  is  upon 
this  subject,  and  without  a  signature,  I  throw  it  aside  with- 
out reading.  I  have  so  often  found  them  to  be  so  grossly 
ignorant,  insulting  and  malicious,  that  as  a  rule  I  read  them 
no  more. 

Question.  Of  the  hundreds  of  people  who  call  upon  you 
nearly  every  day  to  ask  your  help,  do  any  of  them  ever  dis^ 
criminate  against  you  on  account  of  your  Infidelity  ? 

Answer.  No  one  who  has  asked  a  favor  of  me  objects  to 
my  religion,  or,  rather,  to  my  lack  of  it.  A  great  many 
people  do  come  to  me  for  assistance  of  one  kind  and  another. 
But  I  have  never  yet  asked  a  man  or  woman  whether  they 
were  religious  or  not,  to  what  church  they  belonged,  or  any 


lOO  INTERVIEWS. 

questions  upon  the  subject.  I  think  I  have  done  favors  for 
persons  of  most  denominations.  It  never  occurs  to  me 
whether  the3^  are  Christians  or  Infidels.  I  do  not  care.  Of 
course,  I  do  not  expect  that  Christians  will  treat  me  the 
same  as  though  I  belonged  to  their  church.  I  have  never 
expected  it.  In  some  instances  I  have  been  disappointed. 
I  have  some  excellent  friends  who  disagree  with  me  entirely 
upon  the  subject  of  religion.  My  real  opinion  is  that 
secretly  they  like  me  because  I  am  not  a  Christian,  and 
those  who  do  not  like  me  envy  me  the  liberty  I  enjoy. — 

New  York  correspondent,  Chicago  Times ^  May  29,  1881. 

GUITEAU  AND  HIS  CRIME.* 

Question.  By-the-w^ay,  Colonel,  you  knew  Guiteau 
slightly,  we  believe.  Are  you  aware  that  it  has  been  at- 
tempted to  show  that  some  money  loaned  or  given  him  by 
yourself  was  really  what  he  purchased  the  pistol  with  ? 

Aiiswer.  I  knew  Guiteau  slightly  ;  I  saw  him  for  the  first 
time  a  few  days  after  the  inauguration.  He  wanted  a  con- 
sulate, and  asked  me  to  give  him  a  letter  to  Secretary 
Blaine.  I  refused,  on  the  ground  that  I  didn't  know  him. 
Afterwards  he  wanted  me  to  lend  him  twenty-five  dollars, 

•  Our  ' '  Royal  Bob ' '  was  found  by  The  Gazette^  in  the  gloaming  of  a  delicious 
evening,  during  the  past  week,  within  the  open  portals  of  his  friendly  residence, 
dedicated  by  the  gracious  presence  within  to  a  simple  and  cordial  hospitality,  to. 
the  charms  of  friendship  and  the  freedom  of  an  abounding  comradeship.  With  in- 
tellectual and  untrammeled  life,  a  generous,  wise  and  genial  host,  whoever  enters 
finds  a  welcome,  seasoned  with  kindly  wit  and  Attic  humor,  a  poetic  insight  and  a 
delicious  frankness  which  renders  an  evening  there  a  veritable  sjTnpasium.  The 
wayfarer  who  passes  is  charmed,  and  he  wlio  comes  frequently,  goes  always  away 
with  delighted  memories. 

What  matters  it  that  we  differ?  such  as  he  and  his  make  our  common  life  the 
sweeter.  An  hour  or  two  spent  in  the  attractive  parlors  of  the  Ingersoll  homestead, 
amid  that  rare  group,  lends  a  newer  meaning  to  the  idea  of  home  and  a  more  se- 
cure beauty  to  the  fact  of  family  life.  During  the  past  exciting  three  weeks  Colonel 
Ingersoll  has  been  a  busy  man.  He  holds  no  office.  No  jMDsition  could  lend  him  an 
additional  crown  and  even  recognition  is  no  lonjrernecessary.  But  it  has  been  well 
that  amid  the  first  fierce  fury  of  anger  and  excitement,  and  the  sub.<^equent  more 
bitter  if  not  as  noble  outpouring  of  faction's  suspicions  and  innuendoes,  that  so 
manly  a  man,  so  sagacious  a  counsellor,  has  been  enabled  to  hold  so  positive  a  bal- 
ance. Cabinet  officers,  legal  functionaries,  detectives,  citizens — all  have  felt  the 
wise,  humane  instincts,  and  the  capacious  brain  of  this  marked  man  atfecting  and 
influencing  for  this  fair  equipoise  and  c:ilraer  judgment. 

Conversing  freely  on  the  evening  of  this  visit,  Colonel  Ingersoll,  in  the  abund- 
ance of  his  pleasure  at  the  White  House  ne^ys,  submitted  to  be  interviewed,  and 
with  the  following  result. 


INTERVIEWS.  lOI 

and  I  declined.  I  never  loaned  him  a  dollar  in  the  world. 
If  I  had,  I  should  not  feel  that  I  was  guilty  of  trying  to  kill 
the  President.  On  the  principle  that  one  would  hold  the 
man  guilty  who  had  innocently  loaned  the  money  with 
which  he  bought  the  pistol,  you  might  convict  the  tailor 
who  made  his  clothes.  If  he  had  had  no  clothes  he  would 
not  have  gone  to  the  depot  naked,  and  the  crime  would  not 
have  been  committed.  It  is  hard  enough  for  the  man  who 
did  lend  him  the  money  to  lose  that,  without  losing  his 
reputation  besides.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  utter  absurdity 
of  what  has  been  said  upon  this  subject. 

Question.  How  did  Guiteau  impress  you  and  what  have 
you  remembered,  Colonel,  of  his  efforts  to  reply  to  your 
lectures  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  Guiteau  impressed  me  in 
any  way.  He  appeared  like  most  other  folks  in  search  of 
a  place  or  employment.  I  suppose  he  was  in  need.  He 
talked  about  the  same  as  other  people,  and  claimed  that  I 
ought  to  help  him  because  he  was  from  Chicago.  The 
second  time  he  came  to  see  me  he  said  that  he  hoped  I  had 
no  prejudice  against  him  on  account  of  what  he  had  said 
about  me.  I  told  him  that  I  never  knew  he  had  said  any- 
thing against  me.  I  suppose  now  that  he  referred  to  what 
he  had  said  in  his  lectures.  He  went  about  the  country 
replying  to  me.  I  have  seen  one  or  two  of  his  lectures. 
He  used  about  the  same  arguments  that  Mr.  Black  uses  in 
his  reply  to  my  article  in  the  North  American  Review,  and 
denounced  me  in  about  the  same  terms.  He  is  undoubtedly 
a  man  who  firmly  believes  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  has 
no  doubt  concerning  the  New.  I  understand  that  he  puts 
in  most  of  his  time  now  reading  the  Bible  and  rebuking 
people  who  use  profane  language  in  his  presence. 

Question.  You  most  certainly  do  not  see  any  foundation 
for  the  accusations  of  preachers  like  Sunderland,  Newman 
and  Power,  et  at,  that  the  teaching    of  a  secular  liberalism 


I02  INTERVIEWS. 

has  had  anything  to  do  with  the  shaping  of  Guiteau's  char- 
acter or  the  actions  of  his  vagabond  life  or  the  inciting  to 
his  murderous  deeds  ? 

Answer,  I  do  not  think  that  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Power 
was  in  good  taste.  It  is  utterly  foolish  to  charge  the 
"  Stalwarts  "  with  committing  or  inciting  the  crime  against 
the  life  of  the  President.  Ministers,  though,  as  a  rule,  know 
but  little  of  public  affairs,  and  they  always  account  for  the 
actions  of  people  they  do  not  like  or  agree  with,  by  attribu- 
ting to  them  the  lowest  and  basest  motives.  This  is  the 
fault  of  the  pulpit — always  has  been,  and  probably  alwa3^s 
will  be.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Newman  of  New  York,  tells  us  that 
the  crime  of  Guiteau  shows  three  things :  First,  that 
ignorant  men  should  not  be  allowed  to  vote ;  second,  that 
foreigners  should  not  be  allowed  to  vote ;  and  third,  that 
there  should  not  be  so  much  religious  liberty. 

It  turns  out,  first,  that  Guiteau  is  not  an  ignorant  man ; 
second,  that  he  is  not  a  foreigner ;  and  third,  that  he  is  a 
Christian.  Now,  because  an  intelligent  American  Christian 
tries  to  murder  the  President,  this  person  says  we  ought  to 
do  something  with  ignorant  foreigners  and  Infidels.  This 
is  about  the  average  pulpit  logic.  Of  course,  all  the  min- 
isters hate  to  admit  that  Guiteau  was  a  Christian  ;  that  he 
belonged  to  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  or  at 
least  was  generally  found  in  their  rooms ;  that  he  was  the 
follower  of  Moody  and  Sankey,  and  probably  instrumental 
in  the  salvation  of  a  great  manj'  souls.  I  do  not  blame 
them  for  wishing  to  get  rid  of  this  record.  What  I  blame 
them  for  is  that  they  are  impudent  enough  to  charge  the 
crime  of  Guiteau  upon  Infidelity.  Infidels  and  Atheists 
have  often  killed  tyrants.  They  have  often  committed 
crimes  to  increase  the  liberty  of  mankind ;  but  the  history 
of  the  world  will  not  show  an  instance  where  an  Infidel  or 
an  Atheist  has  assassinated  any  man  in  the  interest  of  human 
slavery.     Of  course,  I  am  exceedingly  glad  that  Guiteau 


INTERVIEWS,  103 

Is  not  an  Infidel.  I  am  glad  that  he  believes  the  Bible, 
glad  that  he  has  delivered  lectures  against  what  he  calls 
Infidelity,  and  glad  that  he  has  been  working  for  years  with 
the  missionaries  and  evangelists  of  the  United  States.  He 
is  a  man  of  small  brain,  badly  balanced.  He  believes  the 
Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God.  He  believes  in  the  reality  of 
heaven  and  hell.  He  believes  in  the  miraculous.  He  is 
surrounded  by  the  supernatural,  and  when  a  man  throws 
away  his  reason,  of  course  no  one  can  tell  what  he  will  do. 
He  is  liable  to  become  a  devotee  or  an  assassin,  a  saint  or  a 
murderer ;  he  may  die  in  a  monastery  or  in  a  penitentiary. 

Question.  According  to  your  view,  then,  the  species  of 
fanaticism  taught  in  sectarian  Christianity,  by  which  Gui- 
teau  was  led  to  assert  that  Garfield  dead  would  be  better 
off  than  living — being  in  Paradise — is  more  responsible 
than  office  seeking  or  political  factionalism  for  his  deed? 

A7iswer.  Guiteau  seemed  to  think  that  the  killing  of  the 
President  would  only  open  the  gates  of  Paradise  to  him,  and 
that,  after  all,  under  such  circumstances,  murder  was  hardly 
a  crime.  This  same  kind  of  reasoning  is  resorted  to  in  the 
pulpit  to  account  for  death.  If  Guiteau  had  succeeded  in 
killing  the  President,  hundreds  of  ministers  would  have 
said,  "After  all,  it  may  be  that  the  President  has  lost  noth- 
ing ;  it  may  be  that  our  loss  is  his  eternal  gain ;  and  although 
it  seems  to  us  cruel  that  Providence  should  allow  a  man  like 
him  to  be  murdered,  still,  it  may  have  been  the  very  kindest 
thing  that  could  have  been  done  for  him."  Guiteau 
reasoned  in  this  way,  and  probably  convinced  himself,  judg- 
ing from  his  own  life,  that  this  world  was,  after  all,  of  very 
little  worth.  We  are  apt  to  measure  others  by  ourselves. 
Of  course,  I  do  not  think  that  Christianity  is  responsible  for 
this  crime.  Superstition  may  have  been,  in  part — probably 
was.  But  no  man  believes  in  Christianity  because  he  thinks 
it  sanctions  murder.  At  the  same  time,  an  absolute  belief 
in  the  Bible  sometimes  produces  the  worst  form  of  murder. 


I04  INTERVIEWS. 

Take  that  of  Mr.  Freeman,  of  Pocasset,  who  stabbed  his 
little  daughter  to  the  heart  in  accordance  with  v/hat  he 
believed  to  be  the  command  of  God.  This  poor  man 
imitated  Abraham;  and,  for  that  matter,  Jehovah  himself. 
There  have  been  in  the  history  of  Christianity  thousands 
and  thousands  of  such  instances,  and  there  will  probably  be 
many  thousands  more  that  have  been  and  will  be  produced 
by  throwing  away  our  own  reason  and  taking  the  word  of 
some  one  else — often  a  word  that  we  do  not  understand. 

Qv£stion,  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  effect  of  praying 
for  the  recovery  of  the  President,  and  have  you  any  con- 
fidence that  prayers  are  answered  ? 

Answer.  My  opinion  as  to  the  value  of  prayer  is  well 
known.  I  take  it  that  every  one  who  prays  for  the  Presi- 
dent shows  at  least  his  sympathy  and  good  will.  Person- 
ally, I  have  no  objection  to  anybody's  praying.  Those 
who  think  that  prayers  are  answered  should  pra3\  For 
all  who  honestly  believe  this,  and  who  honestly  implore 
their  Deity  to  watch  over,  protect,  and  save  the  life  of  the 
President,  I  have  only  the  kindest  feelings. 

It  may  be  that  a  few  will  pray  to  be  seen  of  men  ;  but  I 
suppose  that  most  people  on  a  subject  like  this  are  honest. 
Personally,  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  existence  of 
the  supernatural.  Prayer  may  affect  the  person  who  prays. 
It  may  put  him  in  such  a  frame  of  mind  that  he  can  better 
bear  disappointment  than  if  he  had  not  prayed ;  but  I  can- 
not believe  that  there  is  any  being  who  hears  and  answers 
prayer. 

When  we  remember  the  earthquakes  that  have  devoured, 
the  pestilences  that  have  covered  the  earth  with  corpses, 
and  all  the  crimes  and  agonies  that  have  been  inflicted 
upon  the  good  and  weak  by  the  bad  and  strong,  it  does  not 
seem  possible  that  anything  can  be  accomplished  by  prayer. 
I  do  not  wish  to  hurt  the  feelings  of  anyone,  but  I  imagine 
that  I  have  a  right  to  my  own  opinion.     If  the  President 


INTERVIEWS.  105 

gets  well  it  will  be  because  the  bullet  did  not  strike  an  ab- 
solutely vital  part ;  it  will  be  because  he  has  beeu  well 
cared  for ;  because  he  has  had  about  him  intelligent  and 
skillful  physicians,  men  who  understood  their  profession. 
No  doubt  he  has  received  great  support  from  the  universal 
expression  of  sympathy  and  kindness.  The  knowledge 
that  fifty  millions  of  people  are  his  friends  has  given  him 
nerve  and  hope.  Some  of  the  ministers,  I  see,  think  that 
God  was  actually  present  and  deflected  the  ball.  Another 
minister  tells  us  that  the  President  would  have  been 
assassinated  in  a  church,  but  that  God  determined  not  to 
allow  so  frightful  a  crime  to  be  committed  in  so  sacred  an 
edifice.  All  this  sounds  to  me  like  perfect  absurdity- 
simple  noise.  Yet,  I  presume  that  those  who  talk  in  this 
way  are  good  people  and  believe  what  they  say.  Of 
course,  they  can  give  no  reason  why  God  did  not  deflect 
the  ball  when  Lincoln  was  assassinated.  The  truth  is,  the 
pulpit  first  endeavors  to  find  out  the  facts,  and  then  to 
make  a  theory  to  fit  them.  Whoever  believes  in  a  special 
providence  must,  of  necessity,  be  illogical  and  absurd  ; 
because  it  is  impossible  to  make  any  theological  theory 
that  some  facts  will  not  contradict. 

Question.  Won't  you  give  us,  then,  Colonel,  your  analysis 
of  this  act,  and  the  motives  leading  to  it  ? 

Answer,  I  think  Guiteau  wanted  an  office  and  was 
refused.  He  became  importunate.  He  was,  substantially, 
put  out  of  the  White  House.  He  became  malicious.  He 
made  up  his  mind  to  be  revenged.  This,  in  my  judgment, 
is  the  diagnosis  of  his  case.  Since  he  has  been  in  jail  he 
has  never  said  one  word  about  having  been  put  out  of  the 
White  House;  he  is  lawyer  enough  to  know  he  must  not 
furnish  any  ground  for  malice.  He  is  a  miserable,  mali- 
cious and  worthless  wretch,  infinitely  egotistical,  imagines 
that  he  did  a  great  deal  toward  the  election  of  Garfield,  and 
upon  being  refused  the  house  a  serpent  of  malice  coiled 


I06  INTERVIEWS. 

In  his  heart,  and  he  determined  to  be  revenged.  Thai  is 
all! 

QtiesHon.  Do  you,  in  any  way,  see  any  reason  or  founda- 
tion for  the  severe  and  bitter  criticisms  made  against  the 
Stalwart  leaders  in  connection  with  this  crime.  As  you 
are  well  known  to  be  a  friend  of  the  administration,  while 
not  unfriendly  to  Mr.  Conkling  and  those  acting  with  him, 
would  you  mind  giving  the  public  your  opinion  on  this 
point  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  I  do  not  hold  Arthur,  Conkling  and 
Piatt  responsible  for  Guiteau's  action.  In  the  first  excite- 
ment a  thousand  unreasonable  things  were  said ;  and  when 
passion  has  possession  of  the  brain,  suspicion  is  a  welcome 
visitor. 

I  do  not  think  that  any  friend  of  the  administration 
really  believes  Conkling,  Piatt  and  Arthur  responsible  in 
the  slightest  degree.  Conkling  wished  to  prevent  the  ap- 
pointment of  Robertson.  The  President  stood  by  his 
friend.  One  thing  brought  on  another,  Mr.  Conkling 
petulantly  resigned,  and  made  the  mistake  of  his  life. 
There  was  a  good  deal  of  feeling,  but,  of  course,  no  one 
dreamed  that  the  wretch,  Guiteau,  was  lying  in  wait  for  the 
President's  life.  In  the  first  place,  Guiteau  was  on  the 
President's  side,  and  was  bitterly  opposed  to  Conkling. 
Guiteau  did  what  he  did  from  malice  and  personal  spite. 
I  think  the  sermon  preached  last  Sunday  in  the  Campbel- 
lite  Church  was  unwise,  ill  advised,  and  calculated  to  make 
enemies  instead  of  friends.  Mr.  Conkling  has  been  beaten. 
He  has  paid  for  the  mistake  he  made.  If  he  can  stand  it,  I 
can;  and  why  should  there  be  any  malice  on  the  subject? 
Exceedingly  good  men  have  made  mistakes,  and  afterward 
corrected  them. 

Question  Is  it  not  true,  Colonel  IngcrsoU,  that  the  lessor 
of  this  deed  is  to  point  the  real  and  overwhelming  need  of 
re-knitting  and  harmonizing  the  factions  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  107 

Answer.  There  is  hardly  faction  enough  left  for  "knit- 
ting.-' The  party  is  in  harmony  now.  All  that  is  necessary 
is  to  stop  talking.  The  people  of  this  country  care  very 
little  as  to  who  holds  any  particular  office.  They  wish  to 
have  the  Government  administered  in  accordance  with  cer- 
tain  great  principles,  and  they  leave  the  fields,  the  shops, 
and  the  stores  once  in  four  years,  for  the  purpose  of  attend- 
ing to  that  business.  In  the  meantime,  politicians  quarrel 
about  offices.  The  people  go  on.  They  plow  fields,  they 
build  homes,  they  open  mines,  they  enrich  the  world,  they 
cover  our  country  with  prosperity,  and  enjoy  the  aforesaid 
quarrels.  But  when  the  time  comes,  these  gentlemen  are 
forgotten. 

Principles  take  the  place  of  politicians,  and  the  people 

settle  these   questions   for  themselves. — Sunday  Gazette,  washing- 
ton,  D.  C,  July  24,  1881. 

DISTRICT  SUFFRAGE. 

Question.  You  have  heretofore  incidentally  expressed 
yourself  on  the  matter  of  local  suffrage  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  Have  you  any  objections  to  giving  your  present 
views  of  the  question  ? 

Answer.  I  am  still  in  favor  of  suffrage  in  the  District. 
The  real  trouble  is,  that  before  any  substantial  relief  can 
be  reached,  there  must  be  a  change  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  The  mere  right  to  elect  aldermen  and 
maj^ors  and  policemen  is  of  no  great  importance.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  take  all  political  power  from  the  citizens  of  the 
District.  Americans  want  to  help  rule  the  country.  The 
District  ought  to  have  at  least  one  Representative  in  Con- 
gress, and  should  elect  one  presidential  elector.  The  peo- 
ple here  should  have  a  voice.  They  should  feel  that  they 
are  a  part  of  this  country.  They  should  have  the  right  to 
sue  in  all  Federal  courts,  precisely  as  though  they  were 
citizens  of  a  State.     This  city  ought  to  have  half  a  mill- 


I08  INTERVIEWS. 

ion  of  inhabitants.  Thousands  would  come  here  every 
year  from  every  part  of  the  Union,  were  it  not  for  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  wish  to  become  political  nothings.  They 
think  that  citizenship  is  worth  something,  and  they  preserve 
it  by  staying  away  from  Washington.  This  city  is  a  "  flag 
of  truce  "  where  wounded  and  dead  politicians  congregate  ; 
the  Mecca  of  failures,  the  perdition  of  claimants,  the 
purgatory  of  seekers  after  place,  and  the  heaven  only  of 
those  who  neither  want  nor  do  anything.  Nothing  is  manu- 
factured, no  solid  business  is  done  in  this  city,  and  there 
never  will  be  until  energetic,  thrifty  people  wish  to  make  it 
their  home,  and  they  will  not  wish  that  until  the  people  of 
the  District  have  something  like  the  rights  and  political 
prospects  of  other  citizens.  It  is  hard  to  see  why  the  right 
to  representation  should  be  taken  from  citizens  living  at 
the  Capital  of  the  Nation.  The  believers  in  free  govern- 
ment should  believe  in  a  free  capital. 

Question.  Are  there  any  valid  reasons  why  the  constitu- 
tional limitations  to  the  elective  franchise  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  should  not  be  removed  by  an  amendment  to 
that  instrument  ? 

Answer.  I  cannot  imagine  one.  If  our  Government  is 
founded  upon  a  correct  principle  there  can  be  no  objection 
urged  against  suffrage  in  the  District  that  cannot,  with 
equal  force,  be  urged  against  every  part  of  the  country.  If 
freedom  is  dangerous  here,  it  is  safe  nowhere.  If  a  man 
cannot  be  trusted  in  the  District,  he  is  dangerous  in  the 
State.  We  do  not  trust  the  place  where  the  man  happens 
to  be  ;  we  trust  the  man.  The  people  of  this  District  can- 
not remain  in  their  present  condition  without  becoming  dis- 
honored. The  idea  of  allowing  themselves  to  be  governed 
by  commisvsi  Dners,  in  whose  selection  they  have  no  part,  is 
monstrous.  The  people  here  beg,  implore,  request,  ask, 
pray,  beseech,  intercede,  crave,  urge,  entreat,  supplicate, 
memorialize  and  most   humbly   petition,  but  they  neither 


INTERVIEWS.  109 

vote  nor  demand.  They  are  not  allowed  to  enter  the  Temple 
of  Liberty ;  they  stay  in  the  lobby  or  sit  on  the  steps. 

Question,  They  say  Paris  is  France,  because  her  electors 
or  citizens  control  that  municipality.  Do  you  foresee  any 
danger  of  centralization  in  the  full  enfranchisement  of  the 
citizens  of  Washington  ? 

Answer.  There  was  a  time  when  the  intelligence  of  France 
was  in  Paris.  The  country  was  besotted,  ignorant,  Cath- 
olic ;  Paris  was  alive,  educated,  Infidel,  full  of  new  theories, 
of  passion  and  heroism.  For  two  hundred  years  Paris  was 
an  athlete  chained  to  a  corpse.  The  corpse  was  the  rest 
of  France.  It  is  different  now,  and  the  whole  country  is  at 
last  filling  with  light.  Besides,  Paris  has  two  millions  of 
people.  It  is  filled  with  factories.  It  is  not  only  the  intel- 
lectual center,  but  the  center  of  money  and  business  as 
well.  Let  the  Corps  Legislatif  meet  anywhere,  and  Paris 
will  continue  to  be  in  a  certain  splendid  sense — France. 
Nothing  like  that  can  ever  happen  here  unless  you  expect 
Washington  to  outstrip  New  York,  Philadelphia  and 
Chicago.  If  allowing  the  people  of  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia to  vote  was  the  only  danger  to  the  Republic,  I  should 
be  politically  the  happiest  of  men.  I  think  it  somewhat 
dangerous  to  deprive  even  one  American  citizen  of  the 
right  to  govern  himself. 

Question,  Would  you  have  Government  clerks  and  of- 
ficials appointed  to  office  here  given  the  franchise  in  the 
District?  and  should  this,  if  given,  include  the  women 
clerks  ? 

Answer.  Citizenship  should  be  determined  here  as  in 
the  States.  Clerks  should  not  be  allowed  to  vote  unless  their 
intention  is  to  make  the  District  their  home.  When  I  make 
a  government  I  shall  give  one  vote  to  each  family.  The 
unmarried  should  not  be  represented  except  by  parents. 
Let  the  family  be  the  unit  of  representation.  Give  each 
hearthstone  a  votCo 


I  lO  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  How  do  you  regard  the  opposition  of  the  local 
clergy  and  of  the  Bourbon  Democracy  to  enfranchising  the 
citizens  of  the  District  ? 

Answer.  I  did  not  know  that  the  clergy  did  oppose  it.  If, 
as  you  sa}^,  they  do  oppose  it  because  they  fear  it  will  ex- 
tend the  liquor  traffic,  I  think  their  reason  exceedingly 
stupid.  You  cannot  make  men  temperate  by  shutting  up 
a  few  of  the  saloons  and  leaving  others  wide  open.  In- 
temperance must  be  met  with  other  weapons.  The  church 
ought  not  to  appeal  to  force.  What  would  the  clergy  of 
Washington  think  should  the  miracle  of  Cana  be  repeated 
in  their  day  ?  Had  they  been  in  that  country,  with  their 
present  ideas,  what  would  they  have  said  ?  After  all  there 
is  a  great  deal  of  philosophy  in  the  following :  "  Better  have 
the  whole  world  voluntarily  drunk  then  sober  on  compul- 
sion." Of  course  the  Bourbons  object.  Objecting  is  the 
business  of  a  Bourbon.  He  always  objects.  If  he  does  not 
understand  the  question  he  objects  because  he  does  not,  and 
if  he  does  understand  he  objects  because  he  does.  With  him 
the  reason  for  objecting  is  the  fact  that  he  does. 

Question.  What  effect,  if  any,  would  the  complete  fran- 
chise to  our  citizens  have  upon  real  estate  and  business  in 
W^ashington  ? 

Answer.  If  the  people  here  had  representation  according 
to  numbers — if  the  avenues  to  political  preferment  were 
open — if  men  here  could  take  part  in  the  real  government 
of  the  country,  if  they  could  bring  with  them  all  their 
rights,  this  would  be  a  great  and  splendid  Capital.  We 
ought  to  have  here  a  University,  the  best  in  the  world,  a 
library  second  to  none,  and  here  should  be  gathered  the 
treasures  of  American  art.  The  Federal  Government  has 
been  infinitely  economical  in  the  direction  of  information. 
I  hope  the  time  will  come  when  our  Government  will  give 
as  much  to  educate  two  men  as  to  kill  one. — The  Capital^  wash- 

iiiprton,D.  C,  December  18,  1881. 


FUNERAL  OF  JOHN  G.  MILLS  AND  IMMORTALITY.* 

Question.  Have  j^ou  seen  the  recent  clerical  strictures 
upon  your  doctrines  ? 

Amwer.  There  are  always  people  kind  enough  to  send 
me  anything  they  have  the  slightest  reason  to  think  I  do 
not  care  to  read.  They  seem  to  be  animated  by  a  mission- 
ary spirit,  and  apparently  want  to  be  be  in  a  position  when 
they  see  me  in  hell  to  exclaim  :  "  You  can't  blame  me.  I 
sent  you  all  the  impudent  articles  I  saw,  and  if  you  died 
unconverted  it  was  no  fault  of  mine." 

Question.  Did  you  notice  that  a  Washington  clergyman 
said  that  the  very  fact  that  j^ou  were  allowed  to  speak  at 
the  funeral  was  in  itself  a  sacrilege,  and  that  you  ought  to 
have  been  stopped. 

Answer.  Yes,  I  saw  some  such  stor5^  Of  course,  the 
clergy  regard  marriages  and  funerals  as  the  perquisites  of 
the  pulpit,  and  they  resent  any  interference  on  the  part  of 
the  pews.  They  look  at  these  matters  from  a  business 
point  of  view.  They  made  the  same  cry  against  civil 
marriages.  Thej^  denied  that  marriage  was  a  contract,  and 
insisted  that  it  was  a  sacrament,  and  that  it  was  hardly 
binding  unless  a  priest  had  blessed  it.  They  used  to  bury 
in  consecrated  ground,  and  had  marks  upon  the  graves,  so 
that  Gabriel  might  know  the  ones  to  waken.  The  clergy 
wish  to  make  themselves  essential.  They  must  christen 
the  babe — this  gives  them  possession  of  the  cradle.  They 
must  perform  the  ceremony  of  marriage — this  gives  them 
possession  of  the  family.  They  must  pronounce  the 
funeral  discourse — this  gives  them  possession  of  the  dead. 

•Roberto.  Ingersoll  rarely  takes  the  trouble  to  answer  critics.  His  recent  ad- 
dress over  the  dead  body  of  his  friend  John  G.  Mills  has  called  forth  a  storm  of  de- 
nunciation from  nearly  every  pulpit  in  the  country.  The  writer  called  at  the 
Colonel' s  office  in  New  York  Avenue  yesterday  and  a^sked  him  to  reply  to  some  of 
the  points  made  against  him.    Reluctantly  he  assented.  (Ill) 


112  INTERVIEWS. 

Formerly  they  denied  baptism  to  the  children  of  the  un- 
believer, marriage  to  him  who  denied  the  dogmas  of  the 
church,  and  burial  to  honest  men.  The  church  wishes  to 
control  the  world,  and  wishes  to  sacrifice  this  world  for  the 
next.  Of  course  I  am  in  favor  of  the  utmost  liberty  upon 
all  these  questions.  When  a  Presbyterian  dies,  let  a  fol- 
lower of  John  Calvin  console  the  living  by  setting  forth 
the  "Five  Points."  When  a  Catholic  becomes  clay,  let  a 
priest  perform  such  ceremonies  as  his  creed  demands,  and 
let  him  picture  the  delights  of  purgatory  for  the  gratifica- 
tion of  the  living.  And  when  one  dies  who  does  not  believe 
in  any  religion,  having  expressed  a  wish  that  somebody 
say  a  few  words  above  his  remains,  I  see  no  reason  why 
such  a  proceeding  should  be  stopped,  and,  for  my  part,  I 
see  no  sacrilege  in  it.  Why  should  the  reputations  of  the 
dead,  and  the  feelings  of  those  who  live,  be  placed  at  the 
mercy  of  the  ministers  ?  A  man  dies  not  having  been  a 
Christian,  and  who,  according  to  the  Christian  doctrine,  is 
doomed  to  eternal  fire.  How  would  an  honest  Christian 
minister  console  the  widow  and  the  fatherless  children? 
How  would  he  dare  to  tell  what  he  claims  to  be  truth  in  the 
presence  of  the  living  ?  The  truth  is,  the  Christian  minister 
in  the  presence  of  death  abandons  his  Christianity.  He 
dare  not  say  above  the  coffin,  "  the  soul  that  once  inhab- 
ited this  body  is  now  in  hell."  He  would  be  denounced  as 
a  brutal  savage.  Now  and  then  a  minister  at  a  funeral  has 
been  brave  enough  and  unmannerly  enough  to  express  his 
doctrine  in  all  its  hideousness  of  hate.  I  was  told  that  in 
Chicago,  many  years  ago,  a  young  man,  member  of  a 
volunteer  fire  company,  was  killed  by  the  falling  of  a  wall, 
and  at  the  very  moment  the  wall  struck  him  he  was  utter- 
ing a  curse.  He  was  a  brave  and  splendid  man.  An  or- 
thodox minister  said  above  his  coffin,  in  the  presence  of 
his  mother  and  mourning  friends,  that  he  saw  no  hope  for 
the  soul  of  that  young  man.     The  mother,  who  was  also 


INTERVIEWS.  113 

orthodox,  refused  to  have  her  boy  buried  with  such  a  ser- 
mon—stopped the  funeral,  took  the  corpse  home,  engaged 
a  Universalist  preacher,  and,  on  the  next  day  having  heard 
this  man  say  that  there  was  no  place  in  the  wide  universe 
of  God  without  hope,  and  that  her  son  would  finally  stand 
among  the  redeemed,  this  mother  laid  her  son  away,  put 
flowers  upon  his  grave,  and  was  satisfied. 

Qicestion.  What  have  you  to  say  to  the  charge  that  you 
are  preaching  the  doctrine  of  despair  and  hopelessness, 
when  they  have  the  comforting  assurances  of  the  Christian 
religion  to  offer  ? 

Answer.  All  I  have  to  say  is  this  :  If  the  Christian  relig- 
ion is  true,  as  commonly  preached — and  when  I  speak  of 
Christianity,  I  speak  of  the  orthodox  Christianity  of  the 
day — if  that  be  true,  those  whom  I  have  loved  the  best  are 
now  in  torment.  Those  to  whom  I  am  most  deeply  in- 
debted are  now  suffering  the  vengeance  of  God.  If  this 
religion  be  true,  the  future  is  of  no  value  to  me.  I  care 
nothing  about  heaven,  unless  the  ones  I  love  and  have 
loved  are  there.  I  know  nothing  about  the  angels.  I 
might  not  like  them,  and  they  might  not  like  me.  I  would 
rather  meet  there  the  ones  who  have  loved  me  here — the 
ones  who  would  have  died  for  me,  and  for  whom  I  would 
have  died ;  and  if  we  are  to  be  eternally  divided— not  be- 
cause we  differed  in  our  views  of  justice,  not  because  we 
differed  about  friendship  or  love  or  candor,  or  the  nobility 
of  human  action,  but  because  we  differed  in  belief  about 
the  atonement  or  baptism  or  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures— and  if  some  of  us  are  to  be  in  heaven,  and  some  in 
hell,  then,  for  my  part,  I  prefer  eternal  sleep.  To  me  the 
doctrine  of  annihilation  is  infinitely  more  consoling,  than 
the  probable  separation  preached  by  the  orthodox  clergy 
of  our  time.  Of  course,  even  if  there  be  a  God,  I  like  per- 
sons that  I  know,  better  than  I  can  like  him — we  have 
more  in  common — I  know  more  about  them  :  and  how  is 


114  INTERVIEWS. 

it  possible  for  me  to  love  the  infinite  and  unknown  better 
than  the  ones  I  know  ?  Why  not  have  the  courage  to  say- 
that  if  there  be  a  God,  all  I  know  about  him  I  know  by 
knowing  myself  and  my  friends — by  knowing  others  ?  And, 
after  all,  is  not  a  noble  man,  is  not  a  pure  woman,  the  finest 
revelation  we  have  of  God — if  there  be  one?  Of  what  use 
is  it  to  be  false  to  ourselves  ?  What  moral  quality  is  there 
in  theological  pretence  ?  Why  should  a  man  say  that  he 
loves  God  better  than  he  does  his  wife  or  his  children  or 
his  brother  or  his  sister  or  his  warm, true  friend  ?   Several 
minivSters  have  objected  to  what  I  said  about  my  friend  Mr. 
Mills,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  calculated  to  console 
the  living.     Mr.  Mills  was  not  a  Christian.     He  denied  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.     He  believed  that  restitution 
was  the  best  repentance,  and    that,  after  all,  sin  is  a  mis- 
take.    He  was  not  a  believer  in  total  depravity,     or  in  the 
atonement.     He  denied   these   things.     He  was  an  unbe- 
liever.    Now,  let  me  ask,  what  consolation  could  a  Chris- 
tian minister  have  given  to  his  family?  He  could   have 
said  to  the  widow  and  the  orphans,  to  the   brother  and 
sister :  "Your  husband,  your  father,  your  brother,  is  now  in 
hell ;  dry  j^our  tears ;  weep  not  for  him,  but  try  and  save 
yourselveSo      He  has  been  damned  as  a  warning  to  you ; 
care  no  more  for   him,  why   should   you   weep  over  the 
grave  of  a  man  whom  God  thinks  fit  only  to  be  eternally 
tormented  ?  Why  should  you  love  the  memory  of  one  whom 
God  hates?"  The  minister  could  have  said:  "He  had  an 
opportunity — he  did  not  take  it.    The  life-boat  was  lowered 
— he  would  not  get  in   it — he  has  been   drowned,  and  the 
waves  of  God's  wrath  will  sweep  over  him  forever."     This 
is  the  consolation  of  Christianity  and  the  only  honest  con- 
solation that   Christianity   can    have  for  the  widow  and 
orphans   of   an   unbeliever.     Suppose,   however,  that    the 
Christian  minister  has  too  tender  a  heart  to  tell  what  he 
believes  to  be  the  truth — then  he  can  say  to  the  sorrowing 


INTERVIEWS.  115 

friends  :  "  Perhaps  the  man  repented  before  he  died  ;  per- 
haps he  is  not  in  hell,  perhaps  you  may  meet  him  in 
heaven  ;  "  and  this  "  perhaps  "  is  a  consolation  not  growing 
out  of  Christianity,  but  out  of  the  politeness  of  the  preacher 
— out  of  paganism. 

Question.  Do  you  not  think  that  the  Bible  has  consola- 
tion for  those  who  have  lost  their  friends  ? 

Answer.  There  is  about  the  Old  Testament  this  strange 
fact — I  find  in  it  no  burial  service.  There  is  in  it,  I 
believe,  from  the  first  mistake  in  Genesis  to  the  last  curse 
in  Malachi,  not  one  word  said  over  the  dead  as  to  their 
place  and  state.  When  Abraham  died, nobody  said:"  He  is 
still  alive — he  is  in  another  world."  When  the  prophets 
passed  away,  not  one  w^ord  was  said  as  to  the  heaven  to 
which  they  had  gone.  In  the  Old  Testament,  Saul  in- 
quired of  the  witch,  and  Samuel  rose.  Samuel  did  not  pre- 
tend that  he  had  been  living,  or  that  he  was  alive,  but 
asked  :"Wh3'  hast  thou  divSquieted  me?"  He  did  not 
pretend  to  have  come  from  some  other  world.  And  when 
David  speaks  of  his  son,  saying  that  he  could  not  come 
back  to  him,  but  that  he,  David,  could  go  to  his  son,  that 
is  but  saying  that  he,  too,  must  die.  There  is  not  in  the 
Old  Testament  one  hope  of  immortality.  It  is  expressly  as- 
serted that  there  is  no  difference  between  the  man  and 
beast — that  as  the  one  dieth  so  dieth  the  other.  There  is 
one  little  passage  in  Job  which  commentators  have  en- 
deavored to  twist  into  a  hope  of  immortality.  Here  is  a 
book  of  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  pages,  and  hundreds 
and  hundreds  of  chapters — a  revelation  from  God — and  in 
it  one  little  passage,  which,  by  a  mistranslation,  is  tortured 
into  saying  something  about  another  life.  And  this  is  the 
Old  Testament.  I  have  sometimes  thought  that  the  Jews, 
when  slaves  in  Egypt,  were  mostly  occupied  in  building 
tombs  for  mummies,  and  that  they  became  so  utterly  dis- 
gusted with   that   kind  of  work,  that  the   moment    they 


H6  INTERVIEWS. 

founded  a  nation  for  themselves  they  went  out  of  the  tomb 
business.  The  Egyptians  were  believers  in  immortality^ 
and  spent  almost  their  entire  substance  upon  the  dead. 
The  living  were  impoverished  to  enrich  the  dead.  The 
grave  absorbed  the  wealth  of  Egypt.  The  industry  of  a 
nation  was  buried.  Certainly  the  Old  Testament  has 
nothing  clearly  in  favor  of  immortality.  In  the  New 
Testament  we  are  told  about  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven," — 
that  it  is  at  hand — and  about  who  shall  be  worthy,  but  it 
is  hard  to  tell  what  is  meant  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  was  apparently  to  be  in  this 
world,  and  it  was  about  to  commence.  The  Devil  was  to  be 
chained  for  a  thousand  years,  the  wicked  were  to  be  burned 
up,  and  Christ  and  his  followers  were  to  enjoy  the  earth. 
This  certainly  was  the  doctrine  of  Paul  when  he  says  : 
"  Behold,  I  shew  you  a  mystery  ;  We  shall  not  all  sleeps 
but  we  shall  all  be  changed.  In  a  moment,  in  the  twinkling 
of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump ;  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound, 
and  the  dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be 
changed.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on  incorruption, 
and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality."  According  to 
this  doctrine,  those  who  were  alive  were  to  be  changed, 
and  those  who  had  died  were  to  be  raised  from  the  dead. 
Paul  certainly  did  not  refer  to  an}^  other  world  beyond 
this.  All  these  things  were  to  happen  here.  The  New 
Testament  is  made  up  of  the  fragments  of  many  religions. 
It  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  itself;  and  there  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
Christ — neither  in  the  nature  of  things  could  there  be.  It 
is  a  thousand  times  more  probable  that  people  were  mis- 
taken than  that  such  things  occurred.  If  Christ  really  rose 
from  the  dead,  he  should  have  shown  himself,  not  simply 
to  his  disciples,  but  to  the  very  men  who  crucified  him — to 
Herod,  to  the  high  priest,  to  Pilate.  He  should  have  made 
a  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem  after  his  resurrection,  in- 


INTERVIEWS.  117 

Stead  of  before.  He  should  have  shown  himself  to  the 
Sadducees, — to  those  who  denied  the  existence  of  spirit. 
Take  from  the  New  Testament  its  doctrine  of  eternal  pain 
— the  idea  that  we  can  please  God  by  acts  of  self-denial 
that  can  do  no  good  to  others — take  away  all  its  miracles, 
and  1  have  no  objection  to  all  the  good  things  in  it — no 
objection  to  the  hope  of  a  future  life,  if  such  a  hope  is 
expressed — not  the  slightest.  And  I  would  not  for  the 
world  say  anything  to  take  from  any  mind  a  hope  in  which 
dwells  the  least  comfort;  but  a  doctrine  that  dooms  a  large 
majority  of  mankind  to  eternal  flames  ought  not  to  be 
called  a  consolation.  What  I  say  is,  that  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  knew  no  more  about  the  future  state  than 
I  do,  and  no  less.  The  horizon  of  life  has  never  been 
pierced.  The  veil  between  time  and  what  is  called  eternity, 
has  never  been  raised, so  far  as  I  know;  and  I  say  of  the 
dead  what  all  others  must  say  if  they  say  only  what  they 
know.  There  is  no  particular  consolation  in  a  guess.  Not 
knowing  what  the  future  has  in  store  for  the  human  race, 
it  is  far  better  to  prophesy  good  than  evil.  It  is  better  to 
hope  that  the  night  has  a  dawn,  that  the  sky  has  a  star, 
than  to  build  a  heaven  for  the  few,  and  a  hell  for  the 
many.  It  is  better  to  leave  your  dead  in  doubt  than  in 
fire — better  that  they  should  sleep  in  shadow  than  in  the 
lurid  flames  of  perdition.  And  so  I  say,  and  always  have 
said,  let  us  hope  for  the  best.  The  minister  asks:"  What 
right  have  you  to  hope  ?  It  is  sacrilegious  in  you."  But, 
whether  the  clergy  like  it  or  not,  I  shall  always  express 
my  real  opinion,  and  shall  always  be  glad  to  say  to  those 
who  mourn  :  "There  is  in  death,  as  I  believe,  nothing  worse 
than  sleep.  Hope  for  as  much  better  as  you  can.  Under 
the  seven-hued  arch  let  the  dead  rest."  Throw  away  the 
Bible,  and  you  throw  away  the  fear  of  hell,  but  the  hope  of 
another  life  remains,  because  the  hope  does  not  depend 
upon   a  book — it  depends  upon  the   heart — upon   human 


Il8  INTERVIEWS. 

affection.  The  fear,  so  far  as  this  generation  is  concerned, 
is  born  of  the  book,  and  that  part  of  the  book  was  born  of 
savagery.  Whatever  of  hope  is  in  the  book  is  born,  as  I 
said  before,of  human  affection,  and  the  higher  our  civiliza- 
tion the  greater  the  affection.  I  had  rather  rest  my  hope 
of  something  beyond  the  grave  upon  the  human  heart, 
than  upon  what  they  call  the  Scriptures,  because  there  I 
find  mingled  with  the  hope  of  something  good  the  threat  of 
infinite  evil.  Among  the  thistles,  thorns  and  briers  of  the 
Bible  is  one  pale  and  sickly  flower  of  hope.  Among  all  its 
wild  beasts  and  fowls,  only  one  bird  flies  heavenward.  I 
prefer  the  hope  without  the  thorns,  without  the  briers, 
thistles,  hyenas,  and  serpents. 

Question.  Do  you  not  know  that  it  is  claimed  that 
immortality  was  brought  to  light  in  the  New  Testament, 
that  that,  in  fact,  was  the  principal  mission  of  Christ  ? 

Answer.  I  know  that  Christians  claim  that  the  doctrine 
of  immortality  was  first  taught  in  the  New  Testament. 
They  also  claim  that  the  highest  morality  was  found  there. 
Both  these  claims  are  utterly  without  foundation.  Thou- 
sands of  years  before  Christ  w^as  born — thousands  of  years 
before  Moses  saw  the  light — the  doctrine  of  immortality 
was  preached  by  the  priests  of  Osiris  and  Isis.  Funeral 
discourses  were  pronounced  over  the  dead,  ages  before 
Abraham  existed.  When  a  man  died  in  Egypt,  before  he 
was  taken  across  the  sacred  lake,  he  had  a  trial.  Witnesses 
appeared,  and  if  he  had  done  anything  wrong,  for  which 
he  had  not  made  restitution,  he  was  not  taken  across  the 
lake.  The  living  friends,  in  disgrace,  carried  the  body 
back,  and  it  was  buried  outside  of  w^hat  might  be  called 
consecrated  ground,  while  the  ghost  was  supposed  to 
wander  for  a  hundred  years.  Often  the  children  of  the 
dead  would  endeavor  to  redeem  the  poor  ghost  by  acts  of 
love  and  kindness.  When  he  came  to  the  spirit  world 
there  was  the  god  Anubis,  who  weighed  his  heart    in  the 


INTERVIEWS.  119 

scales  of  eternal  justice,  and  if  the  good  deeds  preponder- 
ated he  entered  the  gates  of  Paradise ;  if  the  evil,  he  had  to 
go  back  to  the  world  and  be  born  in  the  bodies  of  animals 
for  the  purpose  of  final  purification.  At  last,  the  good 
deeds  would  outweigh  the  evil,  and,  according  to  the  relig- 
ion of  Egypt,  the  latch-string  of  heaven  would  never  be 
drawn  in  until  the  last  wanderer  got  home.  Immortality 
was  also  taught  in  India,  and,  in  fact,  in  all  the  countries 
of  antiquity.  Wherever  men  have  loved,  wherever  they 
have  dreamed,  wherever  hope  has  spread  its  wings,  the 
idea  of  immortality  has  existed.  But  nothing  could  be 
worse  than  the  immortality  promised  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment— admitting  that  it  is  so  promised — eternal  joy  side 
by  side  with  eternal  pain.  Think  of  living  forever,  know- 
ing that  countless  millions  are  suffering  infinite  pain !  How 
much  better  it  would  be  for  God  to  commit  suicide  and 
let  all  life  and  motion  cease !  Christianity  has  no  consola- 
tion except  for  the  Christian,  and  if  a  Christian  minister 
endeavors  to  console  the  widow  of  an  unbeliever  he  must 
resort,  not  to  his  religion,  but  to  his  sympathy — to  the 
natural  promptings  of  the  heart.  He  is  compelled  to  say : 
"  After  all,  may  be  God  is  not  so  bad  as  we  think,"  or, 
"May  be  your  husband  was  better  than  he  appeared; 
perhaps  somehow,  in  some  w^ay,  the  dear  man  has  squeezed 
in ;  he  was  a  good  husband,  he  was  a  kind  father,  and  even 
if  he  is  in  hell,  may  be  he  is  in  the  temperate  zone,  where 
they  have  occasional  showers,  and,  where,  if  the  days  are 
hot,  the  nights  are  reasonably  cool."  All  I  ask  of  Chris- 
tian ministers  is  to  tell  what  they  believe  to  be  the  truth — 
not  to  borrow  ideas  from  the  pagans — not  to  preach  the 
mercy  born  of  unregenerate  sympath3^  Let  them  tell  their 
real  doctrines.  If  they  will  do  that,  they  will  not  have 
much  influence.  If  orthodox  Christianity  is  true,  a  large 
majorit}^  of  the  men  who  have  made  this  world  fit  to  live 
in  are  now  in  perdition.     A  majority  of  the  Revolutionary 


I20  INTERVIEWSo 

soldiers  have  been  damned.  A  majority  of  the  men  who 
fought  for  the  integrity  of  this  Union — a  majority  who 
were  starved  at  Libby  and  Andersonville — are  now  in  hell. 

Qicestion.  Do  3^ou  deny  the  immortality  of  the  soul  ? 

Answer.  I  never  have  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 
I  have  simply  been  honest.  I  have  said :  "  I  do  not  know." 
Long  ago,  in  my  lecture  on  ''  The  Ghosts,"  I  used  the  fol- 
lowing language  :  "  The  idea  of  immortality,  that  like  a  sea 
has  ebbed  and  flowed  in  the  human  heart,  with  its  count- 
less waves  of  hope  and  fear  beating  against  the  shores  and 
rocks  of  time  and  fate,  was  not  born  of  any  book,  nor  of 
any  creed,  nor  of  any  religion.  It  was  born  of  human 
affection,  and  it  will  continue  to  ebb  and  flow  beneath  the 
mists  and  clouds  of  doubt  and  darkness  as  long  as  love 
kisses  the  lips  of  death.     It  is  the  rainbow  Hope,  shining 

upon  the  tears  of  grief." — TliePost,  Washington,  D.C,  AprU  38, 1883. 

STAR  ROUTE  AND  POLITICS.* 

No,  I  do  not  believe  there  will  be  any  more  Star  Route 
trials.  There  is  so  much  talk  about  the  last  one,  there  will 
not  be  time  for  another. 

Question.  Did  you  anticipate  a  verdict  ? 

Answer,  I  did  anticipate  a  verdict,  and  one  of  acquittal. 
I  knew  that  the  defendants  were  entitled  to  such  a  verdict. 
I  knew  that  the  Government  had  signally  failed  to  prove  a 
case.  There  was  nothing  but  suspicion,  from  which  malice 
was  inferred.  The  direct  proof  was  utterly  unworthy  of 
belief.  The  direct  witness  was  caught  with  letters  he  had 
forged.    This  one  fact  was  enough  to  cover  the  prosecution 

*Col.  Tngersoll  entertains  very  pronounced  ideas  concerning  President  Arthur, 
Attorney-General  Brewster  and  divers  other  people,  which  will  be  found  presented 
herewith  in  characteristically  piquant  style.  With  his  family,  the  eloquent  ad vocate 
has  a  cottage  here,  and  finds  braiti  and  body  rest  and  refreshment  in  the  tumbling 
waves.  This  noon,  in  the  height  of  a  tremendous  thunder  storm,  I  bumped  against 
his  burly  figure  in  the  roaring  crest,  and,  after  the  first  shock  had  passed,  deter- 
mined to  utilize  the  providential  coincidence.  The  water  was  warm,  our  clothes 
were  in  the  bathing  houses,  and  comfort  was  more  certain  where  we  were  than  any- 
where else.  The  Colonel  is  an  expert  smmmer  and  as  a  floater  cannot  be  beaten. 
He  was  floating  when  we  bumped.  Spouting  a  pint  of  salt  water  from  his  mouth, 
he  nearly  choked  with  laughter  as,in  answer  to  my  question  he  said : 


INTERVIEWS.  121 

with  confusion.  The  fact  that  Rerdell  sat  with  the  other 
defendants  and  reported  to  the  Government  from  day  to 
day  satisfied  the  jury  as  to  the  value  of  his  testimony,  and 
the  animus  of  the  Department  of  Justice.  Besides,  Rerdell 
had  offered  to  challenge  such  jurors  as  the  Government 
might  select.  He  handed  counsel  for  defendants  a  list  of 
four  names  that  he  wanted  challenged.  At  that  time  it  was 
supposed  that  each  defendant  would  be  allowed  to  chal- 
lenge four  jurors.  Afterward  the  Court  decided  that  all  the 
defendants  must  be  considered  as  one  party  and  had  the 
right  to  challenge  four  and  no  more.  Of  the  four  names  on 
Rerdell's  list  the  Government  challenged  three  and  Rerdell 
tried  to  challenge  the  other.  This  was  what  is  called  a  co- 
incidence. Another  thing  had  great  influence  with  the 
jury — the  evidence  of  the  defendants  was  upon  all  material 
points  so  candid  and  so  natural,  so  devoid  of  all  coloring, 
that  the  jury  could  not  help  believing.  If  the  people  knew 
the  evidence  thej'  would  agree  with  the  jury.  When  we 
remember  that  there  were  over  ten  thousand  star  routes,  it 
is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  some  mistakes  were  made — 
that  in  some  instances  too  much  was  paid  and  in  others  too 
little. 

Question.  What  has  been  the  attitude  of  President  Arthur  ? 

Answer.  We  asked  nothing  from  the  President.  We 
wanted  no  help  from  him.  We  expected  that  he  would 
take  no  part — that  he  would  simply  allow  the  matter  to  be 
settled  by  the  court  in  the  usual  way.  I  think  that  he 
made  one  very  serious  mistake.  He  removed  officers  on 
false  charges  without  giving  them  a  hearing.  He  deposed 
Marshal  Henry  because  somebody  said  that  he  was  the 
friend  of  the  defendants.  Henry  was  a  good  officer  and  an 
honest  man.  The  President  removed  Ainger  for  the  same 
reason.  This  was  a  mistake,  Ainger  should  have  been 
heard.  There  is  always  time  to  do  justice.  No  day  is  too 
short  for  justice,  and  eternity  is  not  long  enough  to  commit 


122  INTERVIEWS. 

a  wrong.  It  was  thought  that  the  community  could  be 
terrorized : — 

First.  The  President  dismissed  Henry  and  Ainger. 

Second.  The  Attorney-General  wrote  a  letter  aenouncing 
the  defendants  as  thieves  and  robbers. 

Third.  Other  letters  from  Bliss  and  MacVeagh  were 
published. 

Fourth.  Dixon,the  foreman  of  the  first  jury, was  indicted. 

F^fth.  Members  of  the  first  jury  voting  *'  guilty  "  were  in 
various  ways  rewarded. 

Sixth.  Bargains  were  made  with  Boone  and  Rerdell. 
The  cases  against  Boone  were  to  be  dismissed  and  Rerdell 
was  promised  immunity.  Under  these  circumstances  the 
second  trial  commenced.  But  of  all  people  in  this  country 
the  citizens  of  Washington  care  least  for  Presidents  and 
members  of  the  Cabinets.  They  know  what  these  ofl5cers 
are  made  of.  They  know  that  they  are  simply  folks — that 
they  do  not  hold  office  forever — that  the  Jupiters  of  to-day 
are  often  the  pigmies  of  to-morrow.  They  have  seen  too 
many  people  come  in  with  trumpets  and  flags  and  go  out 
with  hisses  and  rags  to  be  overawed  by  the  deities  of  a  day. 
They  have  seen  Lincoln  and  they  are  not  to  be  frighten'ed 
by  his  successors.  Arthur  took  part  to  the  extent  of 
turning  out  men  suspected  of  being  friendly  to  the  defence. 
Arthur  was  in  a  difficult  place.  He  was  understood  to  be 
the  friend  of  Dorsey  and,  of  course,  had  to  do  something. 
Nothing  is  more  dangerous  than  a  friend  in  power.  He  is 
obliged  to  show  that  he  is  impartial,  and  it  always  takes  a 
good  deal  of  injustice  to  establish  a  reputation  for  fairness. 

Question,  Was  there  any  ground  to  expect  aid  or  any  dif- 
ferent action  on  Arthur's  part  ? 

Answer.  All  we  expected  was  that  Arthur  would  do  as 
the  soldier  wanted  the  Lord  to  do  at  New  Orleans — "Just 
take  neither  side." 

Question.  Why  did  not  Brewster  speak  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  123 

Answer.  The  Court  would  not  allow  two  closings.  The 
Attorney-General  did  not  care  to  speak  in  the  "  middle." 
He  wished  to  close,  and  as  he  could  not  do  that  without 
putting  Mr.  Merrick  out,  he  concluded  to  remain  silent. 
The  defendants  had  no  objection  to  his  speaking,  but  they 
objected  to  two  closing  arguments  for  the  Government,  and 
the  Court  decided  that  they  were  right.  Of  course,  I  un- 
derstand nothing  about  the  way  in  which  the  attorneys  for 
the  prosecution  arranged  their  difBculties.  That  was 
nothing  to  me  ;  neither  do  I  care  what  money  the}^  received 
— all  that  is  for  the  next  Congress.  It  is  not  for  me  to 
speak  of  those  questions. 

Question,  Will  there  be  other  trials  ? 

Answer.  I  think  not.  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  other 
attorneys  will  want  to  try,  and  the  old  ones  have.  My 
opinion  is  that  we  have  had  the  last  of  the  Star  Route  trials. 
It  was  claimed  that  the  one  tried  was  the  strongest.  If  this 
is  so  the  rest  had  better  be  dismissed.  I  think  the  people 
are  tired  of  the  whole  business.  It  now  seems  probable 
that  all  the  time  for  the  next  few  years  will  be  taken  up  in 
telling  about  the  case  that  was  tried.  I  see  that  Cook  is 
telling  about  MacVeagh  and  James  and  Brewster  and  Bliss  ; 
Walsh  is  giving  his  opinion  of  Kellogg  and  Foster ;  Bliss  is 
saying  a  few  words  about  Cook  and  Gibson  ;  Brewster  is 
telling  what  Bliss  told  him  ;  Gibson  will  have  his  say  about 
Garfield  and  MacVeagh,  and  it  now  seems  probable  that  we 
shall  get  the  bottom  facts  about  the  other  jury — the  actions 
of  Messrs.  Hoover,  Bo  wen,  Brewster  Cameron  and  others. 
Personall}'- 1  have  no  interest  in  the  business. 

Question.  How  does  the  next  campaign  look  ? 

Answer.  The  Republicans  are  making  all  the  mistakes 
they  can,  and  the  only  question  now  is,  Can  the  Democrats 
make  more  ?  The  tariff  will  be  one  of  the  great  questions, 
and  may  be  the  only  one  except  success.  The  Democrats 
are  on  both   sides  of  this  question.     They   hate  to  give 


124  INTERVIEWS. 

Up  the  word  "  onl}^"  Only  for  that  word  they  might 
have  succeeded  in  1880.  If  they  can  only  let  "only"  alone, 
and  say  they  want  "  a  tariff  for  revenue  "  they  will  do  better. 
The  fact  is  the  people  are  not  in  favor  of  free  trade,  neither 
do  they  want  a  tariff  high  enough  to  crush  a  class,  but  they 
do  want  a  tariff  to  raise  a  revenue  and  to  protect  our  in- 
dustries. I  am  for  protection  because  it  diversifies  indus- 
tries and  develops  brain — allows  us  to  utilize  all  the  muscle 
and  brain  we  have.  A  party  attacking  the  manufacturing 
interests  of  this  country  will  fail.  There  are  too  many 
millions  of  dollars  invested  and  to  many  millions  of  people 
interested.  The  country  is  becoming  alike  interested  on 
this  question.  We  are  no  longer  divided,  as  in  slavery 
times,  into  manufacturing  and  agricultural  districts  or 
sections.  Georgia,  Alabama,  Tennessee,  Louisiana  and 
Texas  have  manufacturing  interests.  And  the  Western 
States  believe  in  the  protection  of  their  industries.  The 
American  people  have  a  genius  for  manufacturing,  a  genius 
for  invention.  We  are  not  the  greatest  painters  or  sculptors 
or  scientists,  but  we  are  without  doubt  the  greatest  in- 
ventors. If  we  were  all  engaged  in  one  business  we  would 
become  stupid.  Agricultural  countries  produce  great  wealth, 
but  are  never  rich.  To  get  rich  it  is  necessary  to  mix 
thought  with  labor.  To  raise  the  raw  material  is  a  question 
of  strength  ;  to  manufacture,  to  put  it  in  useful  and  beauti- 
ful forms, is  a  question  of  mind.  There  is  avast  difference 
between  the  value  of,  say,  a  milestone  and  a  statue,  and 
yet  the  labor  expended  in  getting  the  raw  material  is  about 
the  same.  The  point,  after  all,  is  this:  first,  we  must  have 
revenue ;  second,  shall  we  get  this  by  direct  taxation  oi 
shall  we  tax  imports  and  at  the  same  time  protect  American 
labor?  The  party  that  advocates  reasonable  protection 
will  succeed.* 

•  At  this  point,  Tfith  far  away  peals  of  thunder,  the  storm  ceased,  tbe  stm  reap- 

g eared  and  a  vault  of  heavenly  blue  swung  overhead.     "Let  usgetoui,"  said 
olone)  Ingersoll,    Suiting  the  action  to  the  word,  the  Colonel  struck  out  lustily 
for  the  beach,  on  which,hard  as  a  rock  and  firm  as  flint,  he  soon  plaated  his  sturdy 


INTERVIEWS,  125 

QtusUoru  In  view  of  all  this,  where  do  you  think  the 
presidential  candidate  will  come  from  ? 

Answer.  From  the  West, 

Question.  Why  so  ? 

Answer.  The  South  and  East  must  compromise.  Both 
can  trust  the  West.  The  West  represents  the  whole 
country.  There  is  no  provincialism  in  the  West,  The 
West  is  not  old  enough  to  have  the  prejudice  of  section ;  it 
is  too  prosperous  to  have  hatred,  too  great  to  feel  env3^ 

Question.  You  do  not  seem  to  think  that  Arthur  has  a 
chance  ? 

Answer.  No  Vice-President  was  ever  made  President  by 
the  people.  It  is  natural  to  resent  the  accident  that  gave 
the  Vice-President  the  place.  They  regard  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent as  children  do  a  j:tepmother.  He  is  looked  upon  as 
temporary — a  device  to  save  the  election — a  something  to 
stop  a  gap — a  lighter — a  political  raft.  He  holds  the  horse 
until  another  rider  is  found.  People  do  not  wish  death  to 
suggest  nominees  for  the  presidency.  I  do  not  believe  it 
will  be  possible  for  Mr.  Arthur,  no  matter  how  well  he  acts, 
to  overcome  this  feeling.  The  people  like  a  new  man. 
There  is  some  excitement  in  the  campaign,  and  besides  they 
can  have  the  luxury  of  believing  that  the  new  man  is  a 
great  man. 

Question.  Do  you  not  think  Arthur  has  grown  and  is  a 
greater  man  than  when  he  was  elected? 

Answer.  Arthur  was  placed  in  very  trying  circumstances, 
and,  I  think,  behaved  with  great  discretion.  But  he  was 
Vice-President,  and  that  is  a  vice  that  people  will  not 
pardon. 

form.  And  as  he  Iximbered  across  the  sand  to  the  side  door  of  his  comfortable  cot- 
tage, some  three  hundred  feet  from  the  surf,  the  necessarily  suggested  contrast  be- 
tween Ingersoll  in  court  and  Ingersoll  in  soaked  flannels  was  illustrated  with  forcible 
comicality  Half  an  hour  later  he  was  found  in  the  cozy  library  puffing  a  high 
flavored  Havana,  and  listening  to  home-made  mu^ic  of  delicious  quality .  Ingersoll 
at  home  is  pleasant  to  contemplate.  His  sense  of  personal  freedom  is  there  aptly 
pictured.  Loving  wife  and  atfectionate  daughters  forrQ,with  happy-faced  and  genial- 
hearted  fiather,a  model  circle  into  which  friends  deem  it  a  privilege  to  enter  and  a 
pleasure  to  remain. 
Continuing  the  conversation. 


126  INTERVIEWS. 

Question,  How  do   you  regard  the  situation   in  Ohio? 

A?tswer,  I  hear  that  the  Republicans  are  attacking 
Hoadly,  saying  that  he  is  an  Infidel.  I  know  nothing 
about  Mr.  Hoadly's  theological  sentiments,  but  he  certainly 
has  the  right  to  have  and  express  his  own  views.  If  the 
Republicans  of  Ohio  have  made  up  their  minds  to  disfran- 
chise the  Liberals,  the  sooner  they  are  beaten  the  better. 
Why  should  the  Republican  party  be  so  particular  about 
religious  belief?  Was  Lincoln  an  orthodox  Christian? 
Were  the  founders  of  the  party — the  men  who  gave  it  heart 
and  brain — conspicuous  for  piety  ?  Were  the  abolitionists 
all  believers  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible?  Is  Judge 
Hoadly  to  be  attacked  because  he  exercises  the  liberty  that 
he  gives  to  others.  Has  not  the  Republican  party  trouble 
enough  with  the  spirituous  to  let  the  spiritual  alone?  If 
the  religious  issue  is  made,  I  hope  that  the  party  making  it 
will  be  defeated.  I  know  nothing  about  the  effect  of  the 
recent  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio.  It  is  a  very 
curious  decision  and  seems  to  avoid  the  Constitution  with 
neatness  and  despatch.  The  decision  seems  to  rest  on  the 
difference  between  the  words  tax  and  license — i  e.^  between 
allowing  a  man  to  sell  whiskey  for  a  tax  of  one  hundred 
dollars  or  giving  him  a  license  to  sell  whiskey  and  charging 
him  one  hundred  dollars.  In  this,  the  difference  is  in  the 
law  instead  of  the  money.  So  far  all  the  prohibitory  legis- 
lation on  the  liquor  question  has  been  a  failure.  Beer  is 
victorious,  and  Gambrinus  now  has  Olympus  all  to  himself. 
On  his  side  is  the  "bail" 

Question.  But  who  will  win  ? 

Answer.  The  present  indications  are  favorable  to  Judge 
Hoadly.  It  is  an  off  year.  The  Ohio  leaders  on  one  side 
are  not  in  perfect  harmony.  The  Germans  are  afraid,  and 
they  generally  vote  the  Democratic  ticket  when  in  doubt.  The 
effort  to  enforce  the  Sunday  law,  to  close  the  gardens,  to 


INTERVIEWS.  127 

make  one  day  in  the  week  desolate  and  doleful,  will  give 
the  Republicans  a  great  deal  of  hard  work. 

Qzcestion.  How  about  Illinois  ? 

Answer.  Republican  always.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois  has  just  made  a  good  decision.  That  Court  decided 
that  a  contract  made  on  Sunday  can  be  enforced.  In  other 
words,  that  Sunday  is  not  holy  enough  to  sanctify  fraud. 
You  can  rely  on  a  State  with  a  Court  like  that.  There  is 
very  little  rivalry  in  Illinois.  I  think  that  General  Oglesby 
will  be  the  next  Governor.  He  is  one  of  the  best  men  in 
that  State  or  any  other. 

Question.  What  about  Indiana? 

Answer.  In  that  State  I  think  General  Gresham  is  the 
coming  man.  He  was  a  brave  soldier,  an  able,  honest 
judge,  and  he  will  fill  with  honor  any  position  he  may  be 
placed  in.  He  is  an  excellent  lawyer,  and  has  as  much  will 
as  was  ever  put  in  one  man.  McDonald  is  the  most  available 
man  for  the  Democrats.  He  is  safe  and  in  every  respect 
reliable.  He  is  without  doubt  the  most  popular  man  in  his 
party. 

Question.  Well,  Colonel,  what  are  you  up  to  ? 

Answer.  Nothing.  I  am  surrounded  by  sand,  sea  and 
sky.  I  listen  to  music,  bathe  in  the  surf  and  enjoy  myself. 
I  am  vv^ondering  why  people  take  interest  in  politics ;  wh}- 
anybody  cares  about  anything;  why  everybody  is  not  con- 
tented ;  why  people  want  to  climb  the  greased  pole  of  office 
and  then  dodge  the  brickbats  of  enemies  and  rivals ;  why 
any  man  wishes  to  be  President,  or  a  member  of  Congress, 
or  in  the  Cabinet,  or  do  anything  except  to  live  with  the 
ones  he  loves,  and  enjoy  twenty-four  hours  every  day.  I 
wonder  why  all  New  York  does  not  come  to  Long  Beach 
and  hear  Schreiner's  Band  play  the  music  of  Wagner,  the 
greatest  of  all  composers.     Finally,  in  the  language  of  Walt 

Whitman,  "  I  loaf  and  invite  my  soul." — The  Herald,  New  York, 
July  1.  1883. 


THE  INTERVIEWER. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  newspaper  interviewing  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  that  James  Redpath  claims  to  have  in- 
vented the  "  interview."  This  system  opens  all  doors,  does 
away  with  political  pretence,  batters  down  the  fortifications 
of  dignity  and  official  importance,  pulls  masks  from  solemn 
faces,  compels  everybody  to  show  his  hand.  The  interviewer 
seems  to  be  omnipresent.  He  is  the  next  man  after  the  ac- 
cident. If  a  man  should  be  blown  up  he  would  likely  fall 
on  an  interviewer.  He  is  the  universal  interrogation  point. 
He  asks  questions  for  a  living.  If  the  interviewer  is  fair 
and  honest  he  is  useful,  if  the  other  way,  he  is  still  interest- 
ing. On  the  whole,  I  regard  the  interviewer  as  an  exceed- 
ingly important  person.  But  whether  he  is  good  or  bad, 
he  has  come  to  stay.  He  will  interview  us  until  we  die, 
and  then  ask  the  "  friends"  a  few  questions  just  to  round  the 
subject  off. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  the  tendency  of  newspapers 
is  at  present? 

Answer.  The  papers  of  the  future,  I  think,  will  be  "news" 
papers.  The  editorial  is  getting  shorter  and  shorter.  The 
paragraphist  is  taking  the  place  of  the  heavy  man.  People 
rather  form  their  own  opinions  from  the  facts.  Of  course 
good  articles  will  always  find  readers,  but  the  dreary,  dole- 
ful, philosophical  dissertation  has  had  its  day.  The  maga- 
zines will  fall  heir  to  such  articles ;  then  religious  weeklies 
will  take  them  up,  and  then  they  will  cease  altogether. 

Qtiestion.  Do  you  think  the  people  lead  the  newspapers, 
or  do  the  newspapers  lead  them  ? 

Answer.  The  papers  lead  and  are  led.  Most  papers  have 
/or  sale  what  people  want  to  buy.  As  a  rule  the  people  who 
buy  determine  the  character  of  the  thing  sold.    The  reading 

(138) 


INTERVIEWS.  129 

public  grow  more  discriminating  every  year,  and,  as  a  result, 
are  less  and  less  "  led."  Violent  papers — those  that  most 
freely  attack  private  character — are  becoming  less  hurtful, 
because  they  are  losing  their  own  reputations.  Evil  tends  to 
correct  itself.  People  do  not  believe  all  they  read,  and  there 
is  a  growing  tendency  to  wait  and  hear  from  the  other  side. 

Question,  Do  newspapers  to-day  exercise  as  much  influ- 
ence as  they  did  twenty-five  years  ago  ? 

Answer.  More,  by  the  facts  published,  and  less,  by  edi- 
torials. As  we  become  civilized  we  are  governed  less  by 
persons  and  more  by  principles — less  by  faith  and  more  by 
fact.  The  best  of  all  leaders  is  the  man  who  teaches  people 
to  lead  themselves. 

Question.  What  would  you  define  public  opinion  to  be  ? 

Answer.  First,  in  the  widest  sense,  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  including  all  kinds  of  people.  Second,  in  a  nar- 
rower sense,  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  intellectual. 
Third,  in  actual  practice,  the  opinion  of  those  who  make  the 
most  noise.  Fourth,  public  opinion  Is  generally  a  mistake, 
which  history  records  and  posterity  repeats. 

Question.  What  do  you  regard  as  the  result  of  your  lectures  ? 

Answer.  In  the  last  fifteen  years  I  have  delivered  several 
hundred  lectures.  The  world  is  growing  more  and  more 
liberal  every  day.  The  man  who  is  now  considered  ortho- 
dox, a  few  years  ago  would  have  been  denounced  as  an  In- 
fidel. People  are  thinking  more  and  believing  less.  The 
pulpit  is  losing  influence.  In  the  light  of  modern  discovery 
the  creeds  are  growing  laughable,  A  theologian  is  an  intel- 
lectual mummy,  and  excites  attention  only  as  a  curiosity. 
Supernatural  religion  has  outlived  its  usefulness.  The 
miracles  and  wonders  of  the  ancients  will  soon  occupy  the 
same  tent.  Jonah  and  Jack  the  Giant  Killer,  Joshua  and 
Red  Riding  Hood,  Noah  and  Neptune,  will  all  go  into  the 
collection  ot  the  famous  Mother  Hubbard. — The  Momingjournai 

New  York,  July  8,  1883. 


POLITICS  AND  PROHIBITION. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  result  in  Ohio? 

Answer.  In  Ohio  prohibition  did  more  harm  to  Repub- 
lican chances  than  anything  else.  The  Germans  hold  the 
Republicans  responsible.  The  German  people  believe  in 
personal  liberty.  They  came  to  America  to  get  it,  and  they 
regard  any  interference  in  the  manner  or  quantity  of  their 
food  and  drink  as  an  invasion  of  personal  rights.  They 
claim  they  are  not  questions  to  be  regulated  by  law,  and  I 
agree  with  them,  I  believe  that  people  will  finally  learn  to 
use  spirits  temperately  and  without  abuse,  but  teetotalism  is 
intemperance  in  itself,  which  breeds  resistance,  and  without 
destroying  the  rivulet  of  the  appetite  only  dams  it  and 
makes  it  liable  to  break  out  at  any  moment.  You  can  pre- 
vent a  man  from  stealing  by  tying  his  hands  behind  him» 
but  you  cannot  make  him  honesto  Prohibition  breeds  too 
many  spies  and  informers,  and  makes  neighbors  afraid  of 
each  other.  It  kills  hospitality.  Again,  the  Republican 
party  in  Ohio  is  endeavoring  to  have  Sunday  sanctified  by 
the  Legislature.  The  working  people  want  freedom  on 
Sunday.  They  wish  to  enjoy  themselves,  and  all  laws  now 
making  to  prevent  innocent  amusement,  beget  a  spirit  of 
resentment  among  the  common  people.  I  feel  like  resent- 
ing all  such  laws,  and  unless  the  Republican  party  reforms 
in  that  particular,  it  ought  to  be  defeatedo  I  regard  those 
two  things  as  the  principal  causes  of  the  Republican 
party's  defeat  in  Ohio. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  the  Democratic  success  was 
due  to  the  possession  of  reverse  principles? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  the  Democratic  party  is  in 
favor  of  liberty  of  thought  and  action  in  these  two  regards. 
from  principle,  but  rather  from  policy.     Finding  the  course 

(130) 


INTERVIEWS.  I  SI 

pursued  by  the  Republicans  unpopular,  they  adopted  the 
opposite  mode,  and  their  success  is  a  proof  of  the  truth  of 
what  I  contend.  One  great  trouble  in  the  Republican  party 
is  bigotry^  The  pulpit  is  always  tr^'ing  to  take  charge. 
The  same  thing  exists  in  the  Democratic  party  to  a  less 
degree.  The  great  trouble  here  is  that  its  worst  element- 
Catholicism — is  endeavoring  to  get  control. 

Question.  What  causes  operated  for  the  Republican  suc- 
cess in  Iowa? 

Answer.  Iowa  is  a  prohibition  State  and  almost  any  law 
on  earth  as  against  anything  to  drink,  can  be  carried  there. 
There  are  no  large  cities  in  the  State  and  it  is  much  easier 
to  govern,  but  even  there  the  prohibition  law  is  bound  to 
be  a  failure.  It  will  breed  deceit  and  hypocrisy,  and  in  the 
long  run  the  influence  will  be  bad. 

Question.  Will  these  two  considerations  cut  any  figure  in 
the  presidential  campaign  of  1884? 

Answer.  The  party,  as  a  party,  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  these  questions.  These  matters  are  local.  Whether 
the  Republicans  are  successful  will  depend  more  upon  the 
country's  prosperity.  If  things  should  be  generally  in 
pretty  good  shape  in  1884,  the  people  will  allow  the  party 
to  remain  in  power.  Changes  of  administration  depend  a 
great  deal  on  the  feeling  of  the  country.  If  crops  are  bad 
and  money  is  tight,  the  people  blame  the  administration, 
whether  it  is  responsible  or  not.  If  a  ship  going  down  the 
river  strikes  a  snag,  or  encounters  a  storm,  a  cry  goes  up 
against  the  captain.  It  may  not  have  been  his  fault,  but  he 
is  blamed,  all  the  same,  and  the  passengers  at  once  clamor 
for  another  captain.     So  it  is  in  politics. 

If  nothing  interferes  between  this  and  1884  the  Repub- 
lican party  will  continue.  Otherwise  it  will  be  otherwise. 
But  the  principle  of  prosperity  as  applied  to  administrative 
change  is  strong.  If  the  panic  of  1873  had  occurred  in  1876 
there  would  have  been  no  occasion  for  a  commission  to  sit 


132  INTERVIEWS. 

on  Tilden.  If  it  had  struck  us  in  1880,  Hancock  would  tave 
been  elected.  Neither  result  would  have  its  occasion  in  the 
superiority  of  the  Democratic  party,  but  in  the  belief  that 
the  Republican  party  was  in  some  vague  way  blamable  for 
the  condition  of  things,  and  there  should  be  a  change.  The 
Republican  party  is  not  as  strong  as  it  used  to  be.  The  old 
headers  have  dropped  out  and  no  persons  have  yet  taken 
their  places.  Blaine  has  dropped  out,  and  is  now  writing 
a  book.  Conkling  dropped  out  and  is  now  practicing  law, 
and  so  I  might  go  on  enumerating  leaders  who  have 
severed  their  connection  with  the  party  and  are  no  longer 
identified  with  it. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  regarding  the  Republican 
nomination  for  President? 

Answer.  My  belief  is  that  the  Republicans  will  have  to 
nominate  some  man  who  has  not  been  conspicuous  in  any 
faction,  and  upon  whom  all  can  unite.  As  a  consequence 
he  must  be  a  new  man.  The  Democrats  must  do  the  same. 
They  must  nominate  a  new  man.  The  old  ones  have  been 
defeated  so  often  that  they  start  handicapped  with  their  own 
histories,  and  failure  in  the  past  is  very  poor  raw  material 
out  of  which  to  manufacture  faith  for  the  future.  My  own 
judgment  is  that  for  the  Democrats,  McDonald  is  as  strong 
a  man  as  they  can  get.  He  is  a  man  of  most  excellent 
sense  and  would  be  regarded  as  a  safe  man.  Tilden  ?  He 
is  dead,  and  he  occupies  no  stronger  place  in  the  general 
heart  than  a  graven  image.  With  no  magnetism,  he  has 
nothing  save  his  smartness  to  recommend  him. 

Questio7i.  What  are  your  views,  generally  expressed,  on 
the  tariff  ? 

Answer.  There  are  a  great  many  Democrats  for  protection 
and  a  great  many  for  so-called  free  trade.  I  think  the 
large  majority  of  American  people  favor  a  reasonable  tariff 
for  raising  our  revenue  and  protecting  our  manufacturers.  I 
do  not  believe  in  tariff  for  revenue  only,  but  for  revenue  and 


INTERVIEWS.  133 

protection.  The  Democrats  would  have  carried  the  country- 
had  they  combined  revenue  and  incidental  protection^ 

Question.  Are  they  rectifying  the  error  now? 

Answer.  I  believe  they  are, already.  They  will  do  it  next 
falL  If  they  do  not  put  it  in  their  platform  they  will  em- 
body it  in  their  speeches.  I  do  not  regard  the  tariff  as  a 
local,  but  a  national  issue,  notwithstanding  Hancock  in- 
clined to  the  belief  that  it  was  the  former. — The  Times,  Chicago, 

IlliBois,  October  13, 1883. 

THE  REPUBLICAN  DEFEAT  IN  OHIO. 

Question.  What  is  your  explanation  of  the  Republican 
disaster  last  Tuesday  ? 

Answer.  Too  much  praying  and  not  enough  paying,  is  my 
explanation  of  the  Republican  defeat. 

First.  I  think  the  attempt  to  pass  the  Prohibition  Amend- 
ment lost  thousands  of  votes.  The  people  of  this  country, 
no  matter  how  much  they  may  deplore  the  evils  of  intem- 
perance, are  not  yet  willing  to  set  on  foot  a  system  of  spying 
into  each  other's  affairs.  They  know  that  prohibition  would 
need  thousands  of  oi£cers — that  it  would  breed  informers 
and  spies  and  peckers  and  skulkers  by  the  hundred  in 
every  county.  They  know  that  laws  do  not  of  themselves 
make  good  people.  Good  people  make  good  laws,  Ameri- 
cans do  not  wish  to  be  temperate  upon  compulsion.  The 
spirit  that  resents  interference  in  these  matters  is  the  same 
spirit  that  made  and  keeps  this  a  free  country.  All  this 
crusade  and  prayer-meeting  business  will  not  do  in  politics. 
We  must  depend  upon  the  countless  influences  of  civilization, 
upon  science,  art,  music — upon  the  softening  influences  of 
kindness  and  argument.  As  life  becomes  valuable  people 
will  take  care  of  it.  Temperance  upon  compulsion  destroys 
something  more  valuable  than  itself — libertyo  I  am  for  the 
largest  liberty  in  all  things. 

Second,  The  Prohibitionists,  in  my  opinion,  traded  with 


134  INTERVIEWS. 

Democrats.  The  Democrats  were  smart  enough  to  know 
that  prohibition  could  not  carry,  and  that  they  could  safely 
trade.  The  Prohibitionists  were  insane  enough  to  vote  for 
their  worst  enemies,  just  for  the  sake  of  polling  a  large  vote 
for  prohibition,  and  were  fooled  as  usual. 

Ttiirdly.  Certain  personal  hatreds  of  certain  Republican 
politicians.  These  were  the  causes  which  led  to  Republican 
defeat  in  Ohio. 

Question.  Will  it  necessitate  the  nomination  of  an  Ohio 
Republican  next  year  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  so.  Defeat  is  apt  to  breed  dis- 
sension, and  on  account  of  that  dissension  the  party  will 
have  to  take  a  man  from  some  other  State.  One  politician 
will  say  to  another,  "You  did  it,"  and  another  will  reply, 
"You  are  the  man  who  ruined  the  party."  I  think  we  have 
given  Ohio  her  share ;  certainly  she  has  given  us  ours. 

Question.  Will  this  reverse  seriously  affect  Republican 
chances  next  year? 

Answer.  If  the  country  is  prosperous  next  year,  if  the 
crops  are  good,  if  prices  are  fair,  if  Pittsburg  is  covered  with 
smoke,  if  the  song  of  the  spindle  is  heard  in  Lowell,  if  stocks 
are  healthy,  the  Republicans  will  again  succeed.  If  the 
reverse  as  to  crops  and  forges  and  spindles,  then  the  Demo- 
crats will  win.  It  is  a  question  of  "chinch-bugs,"  and  floods 
and  drouths. 

Questio7i.  Who, in  your  judgment,  would  be  the  strongest 
man  the  Republicans  could  put  up? 

Answer.  Last  year  I  thought  General  Sherman,  but  he 
has  gone  to  Missouri,  and  now  I  am  looking  around.     The 

first  day  I  find  out  I  will  telegraph  you. —  The  Democrat,  Dayton, 
Ohio.  Ootober  15, 1883. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL. 

Qtiestion.  What  do  j^ou  think  of  the  recent  opinion  of 
the  Supreme  Court  touching  the  rights  of  the  colored  man  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  is  all  wrong.  The  intention  of  the 
framers  of  the  amendment,  by  virtue  of  which  the  law  v/as 
passed,  was  that  no  distinction  should  be  made  in  inns,  in 
hotels,  cars,  or  in  theatres  ;  in  short,  in  public  places,  on 
account  of  color,  race,  or  previous  condition.  The  object  of 
the  men  who  framed  that  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  perfectly  clear,  perfectly  well  known,  perfectly  under- 
stood. They  intended  to  secure,  by  an  amendment  to  the 
fundamental  law,  what  had  been  fought  for  by  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men.  They  knew  that  the  institution  of 
slavery  had  cost  rebellion  ;  they  also  knew  that  the  spirit 
of  caste  was  only  slavery  in  another  form.  They  intended 
to  kill  that  spirit.  Their  object  was  that  the  law,  like  the 
sun,  should  shine  upon  all,  and  that  no  man  keeping  a 
hotel,  no  corporation  running  cars,  no  person  manag- 
ing a  theatre  should  make  any  distinction  on  account  of 
race  or  color.  This  amendment  is  above  all  praise.  It  was 
the  result  of  a  moral  exaltation,  such  as  the  world  never 
before  had  seen.  There  were  years  during  the  war,  and 
after,  when  the  American  people  were  simply  sublime ; 
when  their  generosity  was  boundless ;  when  they  were 
willing  to  endure  any  hardship  to  make  this  an  absolutely 
free  country. 

This  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  puts  the  best  people 
of  the  colored  race  at  the  mercy  of  the  meanest  portion  of 
the  white  race.  It  allows  a  contemptible  white  man  to 
trample  upon  a  good  colored  man.  I  believe  in  drawing  a 
line  between  good  and  bad,  between  clean  and  unclean,  but 
I  do  not  believe  in  drawing  a  color  line  which  is  as  cruel  as 
the  lash  of  slavery.  oss) 


136  INTERVIEWS. 

I  am  willing  to  be  on  an  equality  in  all  hotels,  in  all  cars, 
in  all  theatres,  with  colored  people.  I  make  no  distinction 
of  race.  Those  make  the  distinction  who  cannot  afford  not 
to.  If  nature  has  made  no  distinction  between  me  and  some 
others,  I  do  not  ask  the  aid  of  the  Legislature.  I  am  willing 
to  associate  with  all  good,  clean  persons,  irrespective  of 
complexion. 

This  decision  virtually  gives  away  one  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples for  which  the  war  was  fought.  It  carries  the  doc- 
trine of  "  State  Rights "  to  the  Democratic  extreme,  and 
renders  necessary  either  another  amendment  or  a  new 
court 

I  agree  with  Justice  Harlan.  He  has  taken  a  noble  and 
a  patriotic  stand.  Kentucky  rebukes  Massachusetts!  I  am 
waiting  with  some  impatience — impatient  because  I  antici- 
pate a  pleasure — for  his  dissenting  opinion.  Only  a  little 
while  ago  Justice  Harlan  took  a  verj^  noble  stand  on  the 
Virginia  Coupon  cases,  in  which  was  involved  the  right  of 
a  State  to  repudiate  its  debts.  Now  he  has  taken  a  stand 
in  favor  of  the  civil  rights  of  the  colored  man;  and  in  both 
instances  I  think  he  is  right. 

This  decision  may,  after  all,  help  the  Republican  party. 
A  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  aroused  the  indignation 
of  the  entire  North,  and  I  hope  the  present  decision 
will  have  a  like  effect.  The  good  people  of  this  country 
will  not  be  satisfied  until  every  man  beneath  the  flag, 
without  the  slightest  respect  to  his  complexion,  stands 
on  a  perfect  equality  before  the  law  with  every  other.  Any 
government  that  makes  a  distinction  on  account  of  color,  is 
a  disgrace  to  the  age  in  which  we  live.  The  idea  that  a  man 
like  Frederick  Douglass  can  be  denied  entrance  to  a  car,  that 
the  doors  of  a  hotel  can  be  shut  in  his  face ;  that  he  may 
be  prevented  from  entering  a  theatre — the  idea  that  there 
shall  be  some  ignominious  corner  into  which  such  a  man 


INTERVIEWS.  137 

can  be  thrown  by  a  decision  of  tbe  Supreme  Court !  This 
idea  is  simply  absurd. 

Question.  What  remains  to  be  done  now,  and  who  is  going 
to  do  it  ? 

Answer.  For  a  'good  while  people  have  been  saying  that 
the  Republican  party  has  outlived  its  usefulness  ;  that  there 
is  very  little  difference  now  between  the  parties ;  that  there 
is  hardly  enough  left  to  talk  about.  This  decision  opens 
the  whole  question.  This  decision  says  to  the  Republican 
party,  "  Your  mission  is  not  yet  ended.  This  is  not  a  free 
country.  Our  flag  does  not  protect  the  rights  of  a  human 
being."  This  decision  is  the  tap  of  a  drum.  The  old  vet- 
erans will  fall  into  line.  This  decision  gives  the  issue  for 
the  next  campaign,  and  it  may  be  that  the  Supreme  Court 
has  builded  wiser  than  it  knew„  This  is  a  greater  question 
than  the  tariff  or  free  trade.  It  is  a  question  of  freedom,  of 
human  rights,  of  the  sacredness  of  humanity. 

The  real  Americans,  the  real  believers  in  Liberty,  will 
give  three  cheers  for  Judge  Harlan. 

One  word  more.  The  Government  is  bound  to  protect  its 
citizens,  not  only  when  they  are  away  from  home,  but  when 
they  are  under  the  flag.  In  time  of  war  the  Government 
has  a  right  to  draft  any  citizen ;  to  put  that  citizen  in  the 
line  of  battle,  and  compel  him  to  fight  for  the  nation.  If 
the  Government  when  imperiled  has  the  right  to  compel  a 
citizen,  whether  white  or  black,  to  defend  with  his  blood  the 
flag,  that  citizen,  when  imperiled,  has  the  right  to  demand 
protection  from  the  Nation.  The  Nation  cannot  then  say, 
•*  You  must  appeal  to  your  State."  If  the  citizen  must  ap- 
peal to  the  State  for  redress,  then  the  citizen  should  defend 
the  State  and  not  the  General  Government,  and  the  doctrine 

of  State  Rights  then  becomes  complete. —  The  National  Republican, 
Washington,  D.  C,  October  17, 1883. 


JUSTICE  HARLAN  AND  THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Justice  Harlan's  dissent* 
ing  opinion  in  the  Civil  Rights  case  ? 

Answer,  I  have  just  read  it  and  think  it  admirable  in 
every  respect.  It  is  unanswerable.  He  has  given  to 
words  their  natural  meaning.  He  has  recognized  the  in- 
tention of  the  framers  of  the  recent  amendments.  There 
is  nothing  in  this  opinion  that  is  strained,  insincere, 
or  artificial.  It  is  frank  and  manly.  It  is  solid  ma- 
sonry, without  crack  or  flaw.  He  does  not  resort  to 
legal  paint  or  putty,  or  to  verbal  varnish  or  veneer.  He 
states  the  position  of  his  brethren  of  the  bench  with 
perfect  fairness,  and  overturns  it  with  perfect  ease.  He  has 
drawn  an  instructive  parallel  between  the  decisions  of  the 
olden  time,  upholding  the  power  of  Congress  to  deal  with 
individuals  in  the  interests  of  slavery,  and  the  power  con- 
ferred on  Congress  by  the  recent  amendments.  He  has 
shown  by  the  old  decisions,  that  when  a  duty  is  enjoined 
upon  Congress,  ability  to  perform  it  is  given ;  that  when  a 
certain  end  is  required,  all  necessary  means  are  granted. 
He  also  shows  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Acts  of  1793  and  of 
1850,  rested  entirely  upon  the  implied  power  of  Congress  to 
enforce  a  master's  rights ;  and  that  power  was  once  implied 
in  favor  of  slavery  against  human  rights,  and  implied  from 
language  shadowy,  feeble  and  uncertain  w^hen  compared 
with  the  language  of  the  recent  amendments.  He  has 
shown,  too,  that  Congress  exercised  the  utmost  ingenuity 
in  devising  laws  to  enforce  the  master's  claim.  Implication 
was  held  ample  to  deprive  a  human  being  of  his  liberty,  but 
to  secure  freedom,  the  doctrine  of  implication  is  abandoned. 
As  a  foundation  for  wrong,  implication  was  their  rock.     As 

(138) 


INTERVIEWS.  139 

a  foundation  for  right,  it  is  now  sand.  Implied  power  then 
was  sufficient  to  enslave,  while  power  expressly  given  is 
now  impotent  to  protect. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  use  he  has  made  of 
the  Dred  Scott  decision  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  think  he  has  shown  conclusively  that 
the  present  decision,  under  the  present  circumstances,  is  far 
worse  than  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was  under  the  then  cir- 
cumstances. The  Dred  Scott  decision  was  a  libel  upon  the 
best  men  of  the  Revolutionary  period.  That  decision 
asserted  broadly  that  our  forefathers  regarded  the  negroes 
as  having  no  rights  which  white  men  were  bound  to  respect ; 
that  the  negroes  were  merely  merchandise,  and  that  that 
opinion  was  fixed  and  universal  in  the  civilized  portion  of 
the  white  race,  and  that  no  one  thought  of  disputing  it. 
Yet  Franklin  contended  that  slavery  might  be  abolished 
under  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution.  Thomas  Jefferson 
said  that  if  the  slave  should  rise  to  cut  the  throat  of  his 
master,  God  had  no  attribute  that  would  side  against  the 
slave.  Thomas  Paine  attacked  the  institution  with  all  the 
intensity  and  passion  of  his  nature.  John  Adams  regarded 
the  institution  with  horror.  So  did  every  civilized  man, 
South  and  North. 

Justice  Harlan  shows  conclusively  that  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  was  adopted  in  the  light  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision ;  that  it  overturned  and  destroyed,  not  simply  the 
decision,  but  the  reasoning  upon  which  it  was  based  ;  that 
it  proceeded  upon  the  ground  that  the  colored  people  had 
rights  that  white  men  were  bound  to  respect,  not  only,  but 
that  the  Nation  was  bound  to  protect.  He  takes  the 
ground  that  the  amendment  was  suggested  by  the  condition 
of  that  race,  which  had  been  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  to  have  no  rights  which  white  men 
were  bound  to  respect ;  that  it  was  made  to  protect  people 
whose  rights  had  been  invaded,  and  whose  strong  arms  had 


140  INTERVIEWS. 

assisted  in  the  overtlirow  of  the  Rebellion ;  that  it  was  made 
for  the  purpose  of  putting  these  men  upon  a  legal  equality 
with  white  citizens. 

Justice  Harlan  also  shows  that  while  legislation  of  Con- 
gress to  enforce  a  master's  right  was  upheld  by  implication, 
the  rights  of  the  negro  do  not  depend  upon  that  doctrine ; 
that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  does  not  rest  upon  implica- 
tion, or  upon  inference;  that  by  its  terms  it  places  the 
power  in  Congress  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt — con- 
ferring the  power  to  enforce  the  amendment  by  appropriate 
legislation  in  express  terms;  and  he  also  shows  that  the 
Supreme  Court  has  admitted  that  legislation  for  that  pur- 
pose may  be  direct  and  primary.  Had  not  the  power  been 
given  in  express  terms,  Justice  Harlan  contends  that  the 
sweeping  declaration  that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary 
servitude  shall  exist  would  by  implication  confer  the  power. 
He  also  shows  conclusively  that,  under  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment,  Congress  has  the  right  by  appropriate  legislation 
to  protect  the  colored  people  against  the  deprivation  of  any 
right  on  account  of  their  race,  and  that  Congress  is  not  nec- 
essarily restricted,  under  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  to 
legislation  against  slavery  as  an  institution,  but  that  power 
may  be  exerted  to  the  extent  of  protecting  the  race  from 
discrimination  in  respect  to  such  rights  as  belong  to  free- 
men, where  such  discrimination  is  based  on  race  or  color. 

If  Justice  Harlan  is  wrong  the  amendments  are  left  with- 
out force  and  Congress  without  power.  No  purpose  can  be 
assigned  for  their  adoption.  No  object  can  be  guessed  that 
was  to  be  accomplished.  They  become  words,  so  arranged 
that  they  sound  like  sense,  but  when  examined  fall  mean- 
inglessly  apart.  Under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
they  are  Quaker  cannon — cloud  forts — "property"  for 
political  stage  scenery — coats  of  mail  made  of  bronzed 
paper — shields  of  gilded  pasteboard — swords  of  lath. 

Question.  Do  you  wish  to  say  anything  as  to  the  reason- 


INTERVIEWS.  141 

ing  of  Justice  Harlan  on  the  rights  of  colored  people  on 
railways,  in  inns  and  theatres  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  do.  That  part  of  the  opinion  is  especially 
strong.  He  shows  conclusively  that  a  common  carrier  is 
in  the  exercise  of  a  sort  of  public-ofl&ce  and  has  public 
duties  to  perform,  and  that  he  cannot  exonerate  himself 
from  the  performance  of  these  duties  without  the  consent 
of  the  parties  concerned.  He  also  shows  that  railroads  are 
public  highways,  and  that  the  railway  company  is  the  agent 
of  the  State,  and  that  a  railway,  although  built  by  private 
capital,  is  just  as  public  in  its  nature  as  though  constructed 
by  the  State  itself.  He  shows  that  the  railway  is  devoted  to 
public  use,  and  subject  to  be  controlled  by  the  State  for  the 
public  benefit,  and  that  for  these  reasons  the  colored  man 
has  the  same  rights  upon  the  railway  that  he  has  upon  the 
public  highway. 

Justice  Harlan  shows  that  the  same  law  is  applicable  to 
inns  that  is  applicable  to  railways ;  that  an  inn-keeper  is 
bound  to  take  all  travelers  if  he  can  accommodate  them  ; 
that  he  is  not  to  select  his  guests ;  that  he  has  no  right  to 
say  to  one  "  you  may  come  in,"  and  to  another  "  you  shall 
not;"  that  every  one  who  conducts  himself  in  a  proper 
manner  has  a  right  to  be  received.  He  shows  conclusively 
that  an  inn-keeper  is  a  sort  of  public  servant ;  that  he  is  in 
the  exercise  of  a  quasi  public  employment,  that  he  is  given 
special  privileges,  and  charged  with  duties  of  a  public 
character. 

As  to  theatres,  I  think  his  argument  most  happy.  It  is 
this:  Theatres  are  licensed  by  law.  The  authority  to 
maintain  them  comes  from  the  public.  The  colored  race 
being  a  part  of  the  public,  representing  the  power  granting 
the  license,  why  should  the  colored  people  license  a  man- 
ager to  open  his  doors  to  the  white  man  and  shut  them  in 
the  face  of  the  black  man  ?  Why  should  they  be  compelled 
to   license   that  which   they  are  not  permitted  to   enjoy? 


142  INTERVIEWS. 

Justice  Harlan  shows  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  pre- 
vent discrimination  on  account  of  race  or  color  on  railways, 
at  inns,  and  in  places  of  public  amusements,  and  has  this 
power  under  the  Thirteenth  Amendment. 

In  discussing  the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  Justice  Harlan 
points  out  that  a  prohibition  upon  a  State  is  not  a  power  in 
Congress  or  the  National  Government,  but  is  simply  a 
denial  of  power  to  the  State ;  that  such  was  the  Constitution 
before  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  He  shows,  however, 
that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  presents  the  first  instance 
in  our  history  of  the  investiture  of  Congress  with  affirmative 
power  by  legislation  to  enforce  an  express  prohibition  upon 
the  States.  This  is  an  important  point.  It  is  stated  with 
great  clearness,  and  defended  with  great  force.  He  shows 
that  the  first  clause  of  the  first  section  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  is  of  a  distinctly  affirmative  character,  and  that 
Congress  would  have  had  the  power  to  legislate  directly  as 
to  that  section  simply  by  implication,  but  that  as  to  that  as 
well  as  the  express  prohibitions  upon  the  States,  express 
power  to  legislate  was  given. 

There  is  one  other  point  made  by  Justice  Harlan  which 
transfixes  as  with  a  spear  the  decision  of  the  Court.  It  is 
this :  As  soon  as  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments 
were  adopted  the  colored  citizen  was  entitled  to  the  protection 
of  section  two,  article  four,  namely :  "  The  citizens  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  the  several  States."  Now,  suppose  a  colored 
citizen  of  Mississippi  moves  to  Tennessee.  Then,  under 
the  section  last  quoted,  he  would  immediately  become  in- 
vested with  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  a  white 
citizen  of  Tennessee.  Although  denied  these  privileges  and 
immunities  in  the  State  from  which  he  emigrated,  in  the 
State  to  which  he  immigrates  he  could  not  be  discrimin- 
ated against  on  account  of  his  color  under  the  second 
section  of  the  fourth  article.      Now,  is  it  possible  that  he 


INTKRVIEWS.  143 

gets  additional  rights  by  immigration  ?  Is  it  possible  that 
the  General  Government  is  under  a  greater  obligation  to 
protect  him  in  a  State  of  which  he  is  not  a  citizen  than  in 
a  State  of  which  he  is  a  citizen  ?  Must  he  leave  home  for 
protection,  and  after  he  has  lived  long  enough  in  the  State 
to  which  he  immigrates  to  become  a  citizen  there,  must  he 
again  move  in  order  to  protect  his  rights?  Must  one  adopt 
the  doctrine  of  peripatetic  protection — the  doctrine  that  the 
Constitution  is  good  only  in  transitu^  and  that  when  the 
citizen  stops,  the  Constitution  goes  on  and  leaves  him  with- 
out protection  ? 

Justice  Harlati  shows  that  Congress  had  the  right  to 
legislate  directly  while  that  power  was  only  implied,  but  that 
the  moment  the  power  was  conferred  in  express  terms,  then 
according  to  the  Supreme  Court,  it  was  lost. 

There  is  another  splendid  definition  given  by  Justice 
Harlan — a  line  drawn  as  broad  as  the  Mississippi.  It  is  the 
distinction  between  the  rights  conferred  by  a  State  and 
rights  conferred  by  the  Nation.  Admitting  that  many 
rights  conferred  by  a  State  cannot  be  enforced  directly  by 
Congress,  Justice  Harlan  shows  that  rights  granted  by  the 
Nation  to  an  individual  may  be  protected  by  direct  legisla- 
tion. This  is  a  distinction  that  should  not  be  forgotten, 
and  it  is  a  definition  clear  and  perfect. 

Justice  Harlan  has  shown  that  the  Supreme  Court  failed 
to  take  into  consideration  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the 
amendment ;  failed  to  see  that  the  powers  of  Congress  were 
given  by  express  terms  and  did  not  rest  upon  implication ; 
failed  to  see  that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  broad 
enough  to  cover  the  Civil  Rights  Act ;  failed  to  see  that  under 
the  three  amendments  rights  and  privileges  were  conferred 
by  the  Nation  on  citizens  of  the  several  States,  and  that 
these  rights  are  under  the  perpetual  protection  of  the 
General  Government,  and  that  for  their  enforcement  Con- 
gress has  the  right  to  legislate  directly ;  failed  to  see  that 


144  INTERVIEWS. 

all  implications  are  now  in  favor  of  liberty  instead  of 
slavery ;  failed  to  comprehend  that  we  have  a  new  nation, 
with  a  new  foundation,  with  different  objects,  ends,  and 
aims,  for  the  attainment  of  which  we  use  different  means 
and  have  been  clothed  with  greater  powers ;  failed  to  see  that 
the  Republic  changed  front;  failed  to  appreciate  the  real 
reasons  for  the  adoption  of  the  amendments,  and  failed  to 
understand  that  the  Civil  Rights  Act  was  passed  in  order 
that  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  might  appeal  from  local 
prejudice  to  national  justice. 

Justice  Harlan  shows  that  it  was  the  object  to  accomplish 
for  the  black  man  what  had  been  accomplished  for  the 
white  man — that  is,  to  protect  all  their  rights  as  free  men 
and  citizens ;  and  that  the  one  underlying  purpose  of  the 
amendments  and  of  the  congressional  legislation  has  been  to 
clothe  the  black  race  with  all  the  rights  of  citizenship,  and 
to  compel  a  recognition  of  their  rights  by  citizens  and 
States — that  the  object  was  to  do  away  with  class  tyranny, 
the  meanest  and  basest  form  of  oppression. 

If  Justice  Harlan  is  wrong  in  his  position,  then,  it  may 
truthfully  be  said  of  the  three  amendments  that : 
*'  The  law  hath  bubbles  as  the  water  has, 
And  these  are  of  them." 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  denies  the  protection 
of  the  Nation  to  the  citizens  of  the  Nation.  That  decision 
has  already  borne  fruit — the  massacre  at  Danville.  The 
protection  of  the  Nation  having  been  withdrawn,  the  colored 
man  was  left  to  the  mercy  of  local  prejudices  and  hatreds. 
He  is  without  appeal,  without  redress.  The  Supreme  Court 
tells  him  that  he  must  depend  upon  his  enemies  for  justice. 

Question.  You  seem  to  agree  with  all  that  Justice  Harlan 
has  said,  and  to  have  the  greatest  admiration  for  his  opinion? 

A^iswer.  Yes,  a  man  rises  from  reading  this  dissenting 
opinion  refreshed,  invigorated,  and  strengthened.  It  is  a 
mental  and  moral  tonic.     It  v/as  produced  after  a  clear  head 


INTERVIEWS.  145 

had  held  conference  with  a  good  heart.  It  will  furnish  a 
perfectly  clear  plank,  without  knot  or  wind-shake,  for  the 
next  Republican  platform.  It  is  written  in  good  plain 
English,  and  ornamented  with  good  sound  sense.  The 
average  man  can  and  will  understand  its  every  word. 
There  is  no  subterfuge  in  it. 

Each  position  is  taken  in  the  open  field.  There  is  no 
resort  to  quibbles  or  technicalities — no  hiding.  Nothing  is 
secreted  in  the  sleeve — no  searching  for  blind  paths — no 
stooping  and  looking  for  ancient  tracks,  grass -grown  and 
dim.  Each  argument  travels  the  highway — '*  the  big  road." 
It  is  logical.  The  facts  and  conclusions  agree,  and  fall 
naturally  into  line  of  battle.  It  is  sincere  and  candid — 
unpretentious  and  unanswerable.  It  is  a  grand  defence  of 
human  rights — a  brave  and  manly  plea  for  universal  justice. 
It  leaves  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  without  argu- 
ment, without  reason,  and  without  excuse.  Such  an 
exhibition  of  independence,  courage  and  ability  has  won  for 
Justice  Harlan  the  respect  and  admiration  of  "both  sides," 
and  places  him  in  the  front  rank  of  constitutional  lawyers, 

— The  Inier- Ocean,  Chic&go,  Illinois,  November  29,  1883. 

POLITICS  AND  THEOLOGY. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Brewster's  administra- 
tion? 

Ajiswer.  I  hardly  think  I  ought  to  say  much  about  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Brewster.  Of  course  many  things 
have  been  done  that  I  thought,  and  still  think,  extremely 
bad;  but  whether  Mr.  Brewster  was  responsible  for  the 
things  done,  or  not,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say.  When  he  was 
appointed  to  his  present  position,  there  was  great  excite- 
ment in  the  country  about  the  Star  Route  cases,  and  Mr. 
Brewster  was  expected  to  prosecute  everj^body  and  every- 
thing to  the  extent  of  the  law ;  in  fact,  I  believe  he  was 
appointed  by  reason  of  having  made  such  a  promise.     At 


146  INTERVIEWS. 

that  time  there  were  hundreds  of  people  interested  in  ex- 
aggerating all  the  facts  connected  with  the  Star  Route  cases, 
and  when  there  were  no  facts  to  be  exaggerated,  they 
made  some,  and  exaggerated  them  afterward.  It  may  be 
that  the  Attorney  General  was  misled,  and  he  really  sup- 
posed that  all  he  heard  was  true.  My  objection  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Department  of  Justice  is,  that  a  resort 
w^as  had  to  spies  and  detectives.  The  battle  was  not  fought 
in  the  open  field.  Influences  were  brought  to  bear.  Nearly 
all  departments  of  the  Government  were  enlisted.  Every- 
thing was  done  to  create  a  public  opinion  in  favor  of  the 
prosecution.  Everything  was  done  that  the  cases  might  be 
decided  on  prejudice  instead  of  upon  facts. 

Everything  was  done  to  demoralize,  frighten  and  overawe 
judges,  witnesses  and  jurors.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  who 
was  responsible,  possibly  I  am  not  an  impartial  judge.  I 
was  deeph^  interested  at  the  time,  and  felt  all  of  these  things, 
rather  than  reasoned  about  them. 

Possibly  I  cannot  give  a  perfectly  unbiased  opinion. 
Personally,  I  have  no  feeling  now  upon  the  subject. 

The  Department  of  Justice,  in  spite  of  its  methods,  did 
not  succeed.  That  was  enough  for  me.  I  think,  however, 
when  the  country  knows  the  facts,  that  the  people  will  not 
approve  of  what  was  done.  I  do  not  believe  in  trying  cases 
in  the  newspapers  before  they  are  submitted  to  jurors.  That 
is  a  little  too  early.  Neither  do  I  believe  in  trying  them  in 
the  newspapers  after  the  verdicts  have  been  rendered.  That 
is  a  little  too  late. 

Question,  What  are  Mr.  Blaine's  chances  for  the  presi- 
dency ? 

Answer.  My  understanding  is  that  Mr.  Blaine  is  not  a 
candidate  for  the  nomination ;  that  he  does  not  wish  his 
name  to  be  used  in  that  connection.  He  ought  to  have  been 
nominated  in  1876,  and  if  he  were  a  candidate,  he  would 
probably  have  the  largest  following;  but  my  understanding 


INTERVIEWS.  147 

is,  that  lie  does  not,  in  any  event,  wish  to  be  a  candidate. 
He  is  a  man  perfectly  familiar  with  the  politics  of  this 
country,  knows  its  history  by  heart,  and  is  in  every  respect 
probably  as  well  qualified  to  act  as  its  Chief  Magistrate  as 
any  man  in  the  nation.  He  is  a  man  of  ideas,  of  action, 
and  has  positive  qualities.  He  would  not  wait  for  something 
to  turn  up,  and  things  would  not  have  to  wait  long  for  him 
to  turn  them  up. 

Question.  Who  do  you  think  will  be  nominated  at  Chicago  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  who  will 
be  nominated.  I  may  have  an  opinion  as  to  who  ought  to 
be  nominated,  and  yet  I  may  be  greatly  mistaken  in  that 
opinion.  There  are  hundreds  of  men  in  the  Republican 
party,  any  one  of  whom,  if  elected,  would  make  a  good,  sub- 
stantial President,  and  there  are  many  thousands  of  men 
about  whom  I  know  nothing,  any  one  of  whom  would  in  all 
probability  make  a  good  President.  We  do  not  want  any 
man  to  govern  this  country.  This  country  governs  itself. 
We  want  a  President  who  will  honestly  and  faithfully  exe- 
cute the  laws,  who  will  appoint  postmasters  and  do  the^ 
requisite  amount  of  handshaking  on  public  occasions,  and 
we  have  thousands  of  men  who  can  discharge  the  duties  of 
that  position.  Washington  is  probably  the  worst  place  to 
find  out  anything  definite  upon  the  subject  of  presidential 
booms.  I  have  thought  for  a  long  time  that  one  of  the  most 
valuable  men  in  the  country  was  General  Sherman.  Every- 
body knows  who  and  what  he  is.  He  has  one  great  advan- 
tage— he  is  a  frank  and  outspoken  man.  He  has  opinions 
and  he  never  hesitates  about  letting  them  be  known.  There 
is  considerable  talk  now  aboiit  jiisuce  Hafian.  His  dis- 
senting opinion  in  the  Civil  Rights  case  has  made  every 
colored  man  his  friend,  and  I  think  it  will  take  considerable 
public  patronage  to  prevent  a  good  many  delegates  from  the 
Southern  States  voting  for  him. 

Question.  What  are  your  present  views  on  theology  ? 


148  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  Well,  I  think  my  views  have  not  undergone  any 
change  that  I  know  of.  I  still  insist  that  observation,  rea- 
son and  experience  are  the  things  to  be  depended  upon  in 
this  world.  I  still  deny  the  existence  of  the  supernatural. 
I  still  insist  that  nobody  can  be  good  for  you,  or  bad  for  you  ; 
that  you  cannot  be  punished  for  the  crimes  of  others,  nor 
rewarded  for  their  virtues.  I  still  insist  that  the  con- 
sequences of  good  actions  are  always  good,  and  those  of  bad 
actions  always  bad.  I  insist  that  nobody  can  plant  thistles 
and  gather  figs;  neither  can  they  plant  figs  and  gather 
thistles.  I  still  deny  that  a  finite  being  can  commit  an  infinite 
sin ;  but  I  continue  to  insist  that  a  God  who  would  punish  a 
man  forever  is  an  infinite  tyrant.  My  views  have  undergone 
no  change,  except  that  the  evidence  of  that  truth  constantly 
increases,  and  the  dogmas  of  the  church  look,  if  possible, 
a  little  absurder  every  day.  Theology,  you  know,  is  not  a 
science.  It  stops  at  the  grave;  and  faith  is  the  end  of 
theology.  Ministers  have  not  even  the  advantage  of  the 
doctors ;  the  doctors  sometimes  can  tell  by  a  post-mortem 
examination  whether  they  killed  the  man  or  not;  but  by 
cutting  a  man  open  after  he  is  dead,  the  wisest  theologians 
cannot  tell  what  has  become  of  his  soul,  and  whether  it  was 
injured  or  helped  by  a  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures.    Theology  depends  on  assertion  for  evidence,  and  on 

faith  for  disciples. — The  Tribune,  Denver,  Colorado,  January  17,  1886. 

MORALITY  AND  IMMORTALITY. 

Question.  I  see  that  the  clergy  are  still  making  all  kinds 
of  charges  against  you  and  your  doctrines. 

Answer.  Yes.  Some  of  the  charges  are  true  and  some  are 
not.  I  suppose  that  they  intend  to  get  in  the  vicinity  of 
veracity,  and  are  probably  stating  my  belief  as  it  is  honestly 
misunderstood  by  them.  I  admit  that  I  have  said  and  that 
I  still  think  that  Christianity  is  a  blunder.  But  the  ques- 
tion arises.  What  is  Christianity  ?   I  do  not  mean,  when  I 


INTERVIEWS.  149 

say  that  Christianity  is  a  blunder,  that  the  morality  taught 
by  Christians  is  a  mistake.  Morality  is  not  distinctively 
Christian,  any  more  than  it  is  Mohammedan.  Morality  is 
human,  it  belongs  to  no  ism,  and  does  not  depend  for  a 
foundation  upon  the  supernatural,  or  upon  any  book,  or  up- 
on any  creed.  Morality  is  itself  a  foundation.  When  I  say 
that  Christianity  is  a  blunder,  I  mean  all  those  things  dis- 
tinctively Christian  are  blunders.  It  is  a  blunder  to  say  that 
an  infinite  being  lived  in  Palestine,  learned  the  carpenter's 
trade,  raised  the  dead,  cured  the  blind,  and  cast  out  devils,  and 
that  this  God  was  finally  assassinated  by  the  Jews.  This  is 
absurd.  All  these  statements  are  blunders,  if  not  worse.  I  do 
not  believe  that  Christ  ever  claimed  that  he  was  of  supernat- 
ural origin,  or  that  he  WTOUght  miracles,  or  that  he  would 
rise  from  the  dead.  If  he  did,  he  was  mistaken — honestly 
mistaken,  perhaps,  but  still  mistaken. 

The  morality  inculcated  by  Mohammed  is  good.  The 
immorality  inculcated  by  Mohammed  is  bad.  If  Mohammed 
was  a  prophet  of  God,  it  does  not  make  the  morality  he 
taught  any  better,  neither  does  it  make  the  immorality  any 
better  or  any  worse. 

By  this  time  the  whole  world  ought  to  know  that  morality 
does  not  need  to  go  into  partnership  with  miracles.  Moralitj^ 
is  based  upon  the  experience  of  mankind.  It  does  not  have 
to  learn  of  inspired  writers,  or  of  gods,  or  divine  persons. 
It  is  a  lesson  that  the  whole  human  race  has  been  learning 
and  learning  from  experience.  He  who  upholds,  or  believes 
in,  or  teaches,  the  miraculous,  commits  a  blunder. 

Now,  what  is  morality  ?  Morality  is  the  best  thing  to  do 
under  the  circumstances.  Anything  that  tends  to  the  hap- 
piness of  mankind  is  moral.  Anything  that  tends  to  unhap- 
piness  is  immoral.  We  apply  to  the  moral  world  rules  and 
regulatidus  as  we  do  in  the  physical  world.  The  man  who 
does  justice,  or  tries  to  do  so — who  is  honest  and  kind  and 
gwes  to  others  what  he  cl  aitr  s  for  h  imself ,  is  a  moral  man.  All 


I50  INTERVIEWS. 

actions  must  be  judged  by  their  consequences.  Where 
the  consequences  are  good,  the  actions  are  good.  Where  the 
consequences  are  bad,  the  actions  are  bad;  and  all  conse- 
quences are  learned  from  experience.  After  we  have  had  a 
certain  amount  of  experience,  we  then  reason  from  analogy. 
We  apply  our  logic  and  say  that  a  certain  course  will  bring 
destruction,  another  course  will  bring  happiness.  There  is 
nothing  inspired  about  morality — nothing  supernatural.  It 
is  simply  good,  common  sense,  going  hand  in  hand  with 
kindness. 

Morality  is  capable  of  being  demonstrated.  You  do  not 
have  to  take  the  word  of  anybody ;  you  can  observe  and  ex- 
amine for  yourself.  Larceny  is  the  enemy  of  industry,  and 
industry  is  good ;  therefore  larceny  is  immoral.  The  family 
is  the  unit  of  good  government ;  anything  that  tends  to  de- 
stroy the  family  is  immoral.  Honest j''  is  the  mother  of  con- 
fidence ;  it  unites,  combines  and  solidifies  society.  Dishon- 
esty is  disintegration ;  it  destroys  confidence ;  it  brings 
social  chaos  ;  it  is  therefore  immoral. 

I  also  admit  that  I  regard  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  crea- 
tion as  an  absurdity — as  a  series  of  blunders.  Probably 
Moses  did  the  best  he  could.  He  had  never  talked  with 
Humboldt  or  Laplace.  He  knew  nothing  of  geology  or 
astronomy.  He  had  not  the  slightest  suspicion  of  Kepler's 
Three  Laws.  He  never  saw  a  copy  of  Newton's  Principia. 
Taking  all  these  things  into  consideration,  I  think  Moses 
did  the  best  he  could. 

The  religious  people  say  now  that  "  days  "  did  not  mean 
days.  Of  these  "six  days  "  they  make  a  kind  of  telescope, 
which  you  can  push  in  or  draw  out  at  pleasure.  If  the 
geologists  find  that  more  time  was  necessary  they  will  stretch 
them  out.  Should  it  turn  out  that  the  world  is  not  quite  as 
old  as  some  think, they  will  push  them  up.  The  "six  days'* 
can  now  be  made  to  suit  any  period  of  time.  Nothing  can 
be  more  childish,  frivolous  or  contradictory. 


INTERVIEWS.  151 

Only  a  few  years  ago  the  Mosaic  account  was  considered 
true,  and  Moses  was  regarded  as  a  scientific  authority. 
Geology  and  astronomy  were  measured  by  the  Mosaic 
standard.  The  opposite  is  now  true.  The  church  has 
changed;  and  instead  of  trying  to  prove  that  modern  as- 
tronomy and  geology  are  false,  because  they  do  not  agree 
with  Moses,  it  is  now  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  account 
by  Moses  is  true,  because  it  agrees  with  modern  astronomy 
and  geology.  In  other  words,  the  standard  has  changed  ; 
the  ancient  is  measured  by  the  modern,  and  where  the  literal 
statement  in  the  Bible  does  not  agree  with  modern  discov- 
eries, they  do  not  change  the  discoveries,  but  give  new  mean- 
ings to  the  old  account.  We  are  not  now  endeavoring  to 
reconcile  science  with  the  Bible,  but  to  reconcile  the  Bible 
with  science. 

Nothing  shows  the  extent  of  modern  doubt  more  than  the 
eagerness  with  which  Christians  search  for  some  new  tes- 
timony. Luther  answered  Copernicus  with  a  passage  of 
Scripture,  and  he  answered  him  to  the  satisfaction  of  ortho- 
dox ignorance. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Jews  adopted  the  stories  of  Creation, 
the  Garden  of  Eden,  Forbidden  Fruit,  and  the  Fall  of  Man. 
They  were  told  by  older  barbarians  than  they,  and  the  Jews 
gave  them  to  us. 

I  never  said  that  the  Bible  is  all  bad,  I  have  always  ad- 
mitted that  there  are  many  good  and  splendid  things  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  many  bad  things.  What  I  in- 
sist is  that  we  should  have  the  courage  and  the  common 
sense  to  accept  the  good,  and  throw  away  the  bad.  Evil  is 
not  good  because  found  in  good  company,  and  truth  is  still 
truth,  even  when  surrounded  by  falsehood. 

Question.  I  see  that  you  are  frequently  charged  with  dis- 
respect toward  j^our  parents — with  lack  of  reverence  for  the 
opinions  of  your  father  ? 

Answer.  I  think  my  father  and  mother  upon  several  re- 


152  INTERVIEWS. 

ligious  questions  were  mistaken.  In  fact,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  they  were  ;  but  I  never  felt  under  the  slightest  obli- 
gation to  defend  my  father's  mistakes.  No  one  can  defend 
what  he  thinks  is  a  mistake,  without  being  dishonest.  That 
is  a  poor  way  to  show  respect  for  parents.  Every  Protestant 
clergj^man  asks  men  and  women  who  had  Catholic  parents, 
to  desert  the  church  in  which  they  were  raised.  They  have 
no  hesitation  in  saying  to  these  people  that  their  fathers 
and  mothers  were  mistaken,  and  that  they  were  deceived  by 
priests  and  popes. 

The  probability  is  that  we  are  all  mistaken  about  almost 
everything  ;  but  it  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  be  respectable 
enough  to  make  a  mistake  respectable.  There  is  nothing 
remarkably  holy  in  a  blunder,  or  praiseworthy  in  stubbing 
the  toe  of  the  mind  against  a  mistake.  Is  it  possible  that 
logic  stands  paralyzed  in  the  presence  of  parental  absurdity  ? 
Suppose  a  man  has  a  bad  father  ;  is  he  bound  by  the  bad 
father's  opinion,  when  he  is  satisfied  that  the  opinion  is 
wrong  ?  How  good  does  a  father  have  to  be,  in  order  to 
put  his  son  under  obligation  to  defend  his  blunders  ?  Sup- 
pose the  father  thinks  one  way,  and  the  mother  the  other ; 
what  are  the  children  to  do  ?  Suppose  the  father  changes 
his  opinion  ;  what  then  ?  Suppose  the  father  thinks  one 
way  and  the  mother  the  other,  and  they  both  die  when  the 
boy  is  young  ;  and  the  boy  is  bound  out ;  whose  mistakes  is 
he  then  bound  to  follow  ?  Our  missionaries  tell  the  bar- 
barian boy  that  his  parents  are  mistaken,  that  they  know 
nothing,  and  that  the  wooden  god  is  nothing  but  a  sense- 
less idol.  They  do  not  hesitate  to  tell  this  boy  that  his 
mother  believed  lies,  and  hugged,  it  may  be  to  her  dying 
heart,  a  miserable  delusion.  Why  should  a  barbarian  boy 
cast  reproach  upon  his  parents  ? 

I  believe  it  was  Christ  who  commanded  his  disciples  to 
leave  father  and  mother  ;  not  only  to  leave  them,  but  to 
desert  them  ;  and  not  only  to  desert  father  and  mother,  but 


INTERVIEWS.  153 

to  desert  wives  and  children.  It  is  also  told  of  Christ  that 
he  said  that  he  came  to  set  fathers  against  children  and 
children  against  fathers.  Strange  that  a  follower  of  his 
should  object  to  a  man  differing  in  opinion  from  his  parents! 
The  truth  is,  logic  knows  nothing  of  consanguinity  ;  facts 
have  no  relatives  but  other  facts ;  and  these  facts  do  not 
depend  upon  the  character  of  the  person  who  states  them, 
or  upon  the  position  of  the  discoverer.  And  this  leads  me 
to  another  branch  of  the  same  subject. 

The  ministers  are  continually  saying  that  certain  great 
men — kings,  presidents,  vStatesmen,  millionaires — have  be- 
lieved in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible.  Only  the  other  day, 
I  read  a  sermon  in  which  Carlyle  was  quoted  as  having 
said  that  "  the  Bible  is  a  noble  book."  That  all  may  be 
and  yet  the  book  not  be  inspired.  But  what  is  the  simple 
assertion  of  Thomas  Carlyle  worth  ?  If  the  assertion  is 
based  upon  a  reason,  then  it  is  worth  simply  the  value  of 
the  reason,  and  the  reason  is  worth  just  as  much  without 
the  assertion,  but  without  the  reason  the  assertion  is 
worthless.  Thomas  Carlyle  thought,  and  solemnly  put  the 
thought  in  print,  that  his  father  was  a  greater  man  than 
Robert  Burns.  His  opinion  did  Burns  no  harm,  and  his 
father  no  good.  Since  reading  his  "  Reminiscences/'  I 
have  no  great  opinion  of  his  opinion.  In  some  respects  he 
was  undoubtedly  a  great  man,  in  others  a  small  one. 

No  man  should  give  the  opinion  of  another  as  authority 
and  in  place  of  fact  and  reason,  unless  he  is  willing  to  take 
all  the  opinions  of  that  man.  An  opinion  is  worth  the 
warp  and  woof  of  fact  and  logic  in  it  and  no  more.  A  man 
cannot  add  to  the  truthfulness  of  truth.  In  the  ordinary 
business  of  life,  we  give  certain  weight  to  the  opinion  of 
specialists — to  the  opinion  of  doctors,  lawyers,  scientists, 
and  historians.  Within  the  domain  of  the  natural,  we 
take  the  opinions  of  our  fellow- men  ;  but  we  do  not  feel 
that  we  are  absolutely  bound  by  these  opinions.     We  have 


154  INTERVIEWS. 

the  right  to  re-examine  them,  and  if  we  find  they  are 
wrong  we  feel  at  liberty  to  say  so.  A  doctor  is  supposed 
to  have  studied  medicine;  to  have  examined  and  explored 
the  questions  entering  into  his  profession;  but  we  know 
that  doctors  are  often  mistaken.  We  also  know  that  there 
are  many  schools  of  medicine ;  that  these  schools  disagree 
with  one  another,  and  that  the  doctors  of  each  school  dis- 
agree with  one  another.  We  also  know  that  many  patients 
die,  and  so  far  as  we  know,  these  patients  have  not  come 
back  to  tell  us  whether  the  doctors  killed  them  or  not.  The 
grave  generally  prevents  a  demonstration.  It  is  exactly 
the  same  with  the  clergy.  They  have  many  schools  of 
theology,  all  despising  each  other.  Probably  no  two  mem- 
bers of  the  same  church  exactly  agree.  They  cannot 
demonstrate  their  propositions,  because  between  the 
premise  and  the  logical  conclusion  or  demonstration, 
stands  the  tomb.  A  gravestone  marks  the  end  of  theology. 
In  some  cases,  the  physician  can,  by  a  post-mortem  exam- 
ination, find  what  killed  the  patient,  but  there  is  no  theo- 
logical post-mortem.  It  is  impossible,  by  cutting  a  body 
open,  to  find  where  the  soul  has  gone ;  or  whether  baptism, 
or  the  lack  of  it,  had  the  slightest  effect  upon  final  destiny. 
The  church,  knowing  that  there  are  no  facts  beyond  the 
coffin,  relies  upon  opinions,  assertions  and  theories.  For 
this  reason  it  is  always  asking  alms  of  distinguished  peo- 
ple. Some  President  wishes  to  be  re-elected,  and  there- 
upon speaks  about  the  Bible  as  "  the  corner-stone  of 
American  Liberty."  This  sentence  is  a  mouth  large 
enough  to  swallow  any  church,  and  from  that  time  forward 
the  religious  people  will  be  citing  that  remark  of  the  poli- 
tician to  substantiate  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  man  who  accepts  opinions  because  they  have  been 
entertained  by  distinguished  people,  is  a  mental  snob. 
When  we  blindly  follow  authority  we  are  serfs.  When  our 
reason  is  convinced  we  are  freemen.     It  is  rare  to  find  a 


INTERVIEWS.  155 

fully  rounded  and  complete  man.  A  man  may  be  a  great 
doctor  and  a  poor  mechanic,  a  successful  politician  and  a 
poor  metaphysician,  a  poor  painter  and  a  good  poet. 

The  rarest  thing  in  the  world  is  a  logician — that  is  to 
say,  a  man  who  knows  the  value  of  a  fact.  It  is  hard  to 
find  mental  proportion.  Theories  may  be  established  by 
names,  but  facts  cannot  be  demonstrated  in  that  way.  Very 
small  people  are  sometimes  right,  and  very  great  people 
are  sometimes  wrong.     Ministers  are  sometimes  right. 

In  all  the  philosophies  of  the  world  there  are  undoubtedly 
contradictions  and  absurdities.  The  mind  of  man  is  imper- 
fect and  perfect  results  are  impossible,  A  mirror,  in  order 
to  reflect  a  perfect  picture,  a  perfect  copy,  must  itself  be 
perfect.  The  mind  is  a  little  piece  of  intellectual  glass 
the  surface  of  which  is  not  true,  not  perfect.  In  conse- 
quence of  this,  every  image  is  more  or  less  distorted.  The 
less  we  know,  the  more  we  imagine  that  we  can  know  ;  but 
the  more  we  know,  the  smaller  seems  the  sum  of  knowl- 
edge. The  less  we  know,  the  more  we  expect,  the  more  we 
hope  for,  and  the  more  seems  within  the  range  of  proba- 
bility. The  less  we  have,  the  more  we  want.  There  never 
v^as  a  banquet  magnificent  enough  to  gratify  the  imagina- 
tion of  a  beggar.  The  moment  people  begin  to  reason 
about  what  they  call  the  supernatural,  they  seem  to  lose 
their  minds.  People  seem  to  have  lost  their  reason  in 
religious  matters,  very  much  as  the  dodo  is  said  to  have 
lost  its  wings ;  they  have  been  restricted  to  a  little  inspired 
island,  and  by  disuse  their  reason  has  been  lost. 

In  the  Jewish  Scriptures  you  will  find  simply  the  litera- 
ture of  the  Jews.  You  will  find  there  the  tears  and  anguish 
of  captivity,  patriotic  fervor,  national  aspiration,  proverbs 
for  the  conduct  of  daily  life,  laws,  regulations,  customs, 
legends,  philosophy  and  folly.  These  books,  of  course, 
were  not  written  by  one  man,  but  by  many  authors.  They 
do  not  agree,  having  been  written  in  different  centuries. 


(56  INTERVIEWS. 

under  different  circumstances.  I  see  that  Mr.  Beecher  has 
at  last  concluded  that  the  Old  Testament  does  not  teach 
the  doctrine  of  immortality.  He  admits  that  from  Mount 
Sinai  came  no  hope  for  the  dead.  It  is  very  curious  that 
v,^e  find  in  the  Old  Testament  no  funeral  service.  No  one. 
stands  by  the  dead  and  predicts  another  life.  In  the  Old 
Testament  there  is  no  promise  of  another  world.  I  hava 
sometimes  thought  that  while  the  Jews  were  slaves  in  Egypt, 
the  doctrine  of  immortality  became  hateful.  They  built 
so  many  tombs ;  they  carried  so  many  burdens  to  commem- 
orate  the  dead;  they  saw  a  nation  waste  its  wealth  to 
adorn  its  graves,  and  leave  the  living  naked  to  embalm  the 
dead,  that  they  concluded  the  doctrine  was  a  curse  and 
never  should  be  taught. 

Question.  If  the  Jews  did  not  believe  in  immortality,  how 
do  you  account  for  the  allusions  made  to  witches  and  wizards 
and  things  of  that  character  ? 

Answer.  When  Saul  visited  the  Witch  of  Endor,  and  she, 
by  some  magic  spell,  called  up  Samuel,  the  prophet  said : 
"Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me,  to  call  me  up?"  He  did 
not  say:  Why  have  you  called  me  from  another  world? 
The  idea  expressed  is :  I  was  asleep,  why  did  you  disturb 
that  repose  which  should  be  eternal?  The  ancient  Jews  be- 
lieved in  witches  and  wizards  and  familiar  spirits;  but  they 
did  not  seem  to  think  that  these  spirits  had  once  been  men 
and  women.  They  spoke  of  them  as  belonging  to  another 
world,  a  world  to  which  man  would  never  find  his  wayc  At 
that  time  it  was  supposed  that  Jehovah  and  his  angels  lived 
in  the  sky,  but  that  region  was  not  spoken  of  as  the  destined 
home  of  man.  Jacob  saw  angels  going  up  and  down  the 
ladder,  but  not  the  spirits  of  those  he  had  known.  There 
are  two  cases  where  it  seems  that  men  were  good  enough  to 
be  adopted  into  the  family  of  heaven.  Enoch  was  translated, 
and  Elijah  was  taken  up  in  a  chariot  of  fire.  As  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly cold  at  the  height  of  a  few  miles,  it  is  easy  to  see 


INTERVIEWS.  157 

why  the  chariot  was  of  fire,  and  the  same  fact  explains 
another  circumstance — the  dropping  of  the  mantle.  The 
Jews  probably  believed  in  the  existence  of  other  beings — that 
is  to  say,  in  angels  and  gods  and  evil  spirits — and  that  they 
lived  in  other  worlds — but  there  is  no  passage  showing  that 
they  believe  in  what  we  call  the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

Question.  Do  you  believe,  or  disbelieve,  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  ? 

Answer.  I  neither  assert  nor  deny ;  I  simply  admit  that  I 
do  not  know.  Upon  that  subject  I  am  absolutely  without 
evidence.  This  is  the  only  world  that  I  was  ever  in.  There 
may  be  spirits,  but  I  have  never  met  them,  and  do  not  know 
that  I  would  recognize  a  spirit.  I  can  form  no  conception 
of  what  is  called  spiritual  life.  It  may  be  that  I  am  de- 
ficient in  imagination,  and  that  ministers  have  no  difiiculty 
in  conceiving  of  angels  and  disembodied  souls.  I  have  not 
the  slightest  idea  how  a  soul  looks,  what  shape  it  is,  how  it 
goes  from  one  place  to  another,  whether  it  walks  or  flies.  I 
cannot  conceive  of  the  immaterial  having  form ;  neither  can 
I  conceive  of  anything  existing  without  form,  and  yet  the 
fact  that  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  thing  does  not  prove  that  the 
thing  does  not  exist,  but  it  does  prove  that  I  know  nothing 
about  it,  and  that  being  so,  I  ought  to  admit  my  ignorance. 
I  am  satisfied  of  a  good  many  things  that  I  do  not  know.  I 
am  satisfied  that  there  is  no  place  of  eternal  torment.  I  am 
satisfied  that  that  doctrine  has  done  more  harm  than  all  the 
religious  ideas,  other  than  that,  have  done  good.  I  do  not 
want  to  take  any  hope  from  anj^  human  heart.  I  have  no 
objection  to  people  believing  in  any  good  thing — no  objec- 
tion to  their  expecting  a  crown  of  infinite  joy  for  ever\' 
human  being.  Many  people  imagine  that  immortality  must 
be  an  infinite  good  ;  but,  after  all,  there  is  something  terrible 
in  the  idea  of  endless  life.  Think  of  a  river  that  never 
reaches  the  sea ;  of  a  bird  that  never  folds  its  wings ;  of  a 
journey  that  never  ends.     Most  people  find  great  pleasure 


158  INTERVIEWS. 

in  thinking  about  and  in  believing  in  another  world.  There 
the  prisoner  expects  to  be  free ;  the  slave  to  find  liberty ;  the 
poor  man  expects  wealth;  the  rich  man  happiness;  the 
peasant  dreams  of  power,  and  the  king  of  contentment. 
They  expect  to  find  there  what  they  lack  here.  I  do  not 
wish  to  destroy  these  dreams.  I  am  endeavoring  to  put  out 
the  everlasting  fires.  A  good,  cool  grave  is  infinitely  better 
than  the  fiery  furnace  of  Jehovah's  wrath.  Eternal  sleep  is 
better  than  eternal  pain.  For  my  part  I  would  rather  be 
annihilated  than  to  be  an  angel,  with  all  the  privileges  of 
heaven,  and  yet  have  within  my  breast  a  heart  that  could  be 
happy  while  those  who  had  loved  me  in  this  world  were 
in  perdition. 

I  most  sincerely  hope  that  the  future  life  will  fulfill  all 
splendid  dreams ;  but  in  the  religion  of  the  present  day  there 
is  no  joy.  Nothing  is  so  devoid  of  comfort,  when  bending 
above  our  dead,  as  the  assertions  of  theology  unsupported 
by  a  single  fact.  The  promises  are  so  far  away,  and  the 
dead  are  so  near.  From  words  spoken  eighteen  centm-ies 
ago,  the  echoes  are  so  weak,  and  the  sounds  of  the 
clods  on  the  coffin  are  so  loud.  Above  the  grave  what  can 
the  honest  minister  say  ?  If  the  dead  were  not  a  Christian, 
what  then?  What  comfort  can  the  orthodox  clergyman 
give  to  the  widow  of  the  honest  unbeliever?  If  Christianity 
is  true,  the  other  world  will  be  worse  than  this.  There  the 
many  will  be  miserable,  only  the  few  happy;  there  the 
miserable  cannot  better  their  condition ;  the  future  has  no 
star  of  hope,  and  in  the  east  of  eternity  there  can  never  be  a 
dawn. 

Questio7i.  If  you  take  away  the  idea  of  eternal  punishment, 
how  do  3' ou  propose  to  restrain  men ;  in  what  way  will  you 
influence  conduct  for  good? 

Answer.  Well,  the  trouble  with  religion  is  that  it  post- 
pones punishment  and  reward  to  another  world.  Wrong  is 
wrong,  because  it  breeds  unhappiness.     Right  is  right,  be- 


INTERVIEWS.  159 

cause  it  tends  to  the  happiness  of  man.  These  facts  are  the 
basis  of  what  I  call  the  religion  of  this  world.  When  a  man 
does  wrong,  the  consequences  follow,  and  between  the  cause 
and  effect,  a  Redeemer  cannot  step.  Forgiveness  cannot 
form  a  breastwork  between  act  and  consequence. 

There  should  be  a  religion  of  the  body — a  religion  that 
will  prevent  deformity,  that  will  refuse  to  multiply  insanity, 
that  will  not  propagate  disease — a  religion  that  is  judged  by 
its  consequences  in  this  world.  Orthodox  Christianity  has 
taught,  and  still  teaches,  that  in  this  world  the  difference 
between  the  good  and  bad  is  that  the  bad  enjoy  themselves, 
while  the  good  carry  the  cross  of  virtue  with  bleeding  brows 
bound  and  pierced  with  the  thorns  of  honesty  and  kindness. 
All  this,  in  my  judgment,  is  immoral.  The  man  who  does 
wrong  carries  a  cross.  There  is  no  world,  no  star,  in  which 
the  result  of  wrong  is  real  happiness.  There  is  no  world, 
no  star,  in  which  the  result  of  right  doing  is  unhappiness. 
Virtue  and  vice  must  be  the  same  ever5rwhere. 

Vice  must  be  vice  everywhere,  because  its  consequences 
are  evil ;  and  virtue  must  be  virtue  ever>^where,  because  its 
consequences  are  good.  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  for- 
giveness. These  facts  are  the  only  restraining  influences 
possible — the  innocent  man  cannot  suffer  for  the  guilty  and 
satisfy  the  law. 

Questi07i.  How  do  you  answer  the  argument,  or  the  fact, 
that  the  church  is  constantly  increasing,  and  that  there  are 
now  four  hundred  millions  of  Christians  ? 

Answer.  That  is  what  I  call  the  argument  of  numbers. 
If  that  argument  is  good  now,  it  was  alwaj^s  good.  If 
Christians  were  at  any  time  in  the  minority,  then,  accord- 
ing to  this  argument,  Christianity  was  wrong.  Every  re- 
ligion that  has  succeeded  has  appealed  to  the  argument  of 
numbers.  There  was  a  time  when  Buddhism  was  in  a 
majority.  Buddha  not  only  had,  but  has  more  followers 
than  Christ.     Success  is  not  a  demonstration.     Mohammed 


l6o  INTERVIEWS. 

was  a  succeSvS,  and  a  success  from  the  commencement. 
Upon  a  thousand  fields  he  was  victor.  Of  the  scattered 
tribes  of  the  desert,  he  made  a  nation,  and  this  nation  took 
the  fairest  part  of  Europe  from  the  followers  of  the  cross. 
In  the  history  of  the  world,  the  success  of  Mohammed  is 
unparalleled,  but  this  success  does  not  establish  that  he  was 
the  prophet  of  God. 

Now,  it  is  claimed  that  there  are  some  four  hundred 
millions  of  Christians.  To  make  that  total  I  am  counted  as  a 
Christian  ;  I  am  one  of  the  fifty  or  sixty  millions  of  Christians 
in  the  United  States — excluding  Indians,  not  taxed.  By  the 
census  report,  we  are  all  going  to  heaven — we  are  all  ortho- 
dox. At  the  last  great  day  we  can  refer  with  confidence  to 
the  ponderous  volumes  containing  the  statistics  of  the 
United  States.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how  many  Christians 
are  there  in  the  United' States — how  many  believers  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures — how  many  real  followers  of 
Christ  ?  I  will  not  pretend  to  give  the  number,  but  I  will 
venture  to  say  that  there  are  not  fifty  millions.  How  many 
in  England  ?  Where  are  the  four  hundred  millions  found  ? 
To  make  this  immense  number,  they  have  counted  all  the 
Heretics,  all  the  Catholics,  all  the  Jews,  Spiritualists,  Uni- 
versalists  and  Unitarians,  all  the  babes,  all  the  idiotic 
and  insane,  all  the  Infidels,  all  the  scientists,  all  the  unbe- 
lievers. As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  have  no  right  to  count 
any  except  the  orthodox  members  of  the  orthodox 
churches.  There  may  be  more  "members"  now  than 
formerly,  and  this  increase  of  members  is  due  to  a  decrease 
of  religion.  Thousands  of  members  are  only  nominal 
Christians,  wearing  the  old  uniform  simply  because  they 
do  not  wish  to  be  charged  with  desertion.  The  church,  too, 
is  a  kind  of  social  institution,  a  club  with  a  creed  instead  of 
by-laws,  and  the  creed  is  never  defended  unless  attacked  by 
an  outsider.  No  objection  is  made  to  the  minister  because 
he  is  liberal,  if  he  says  nothing  about  it  in  his  pulpit.     A 


INTERVIEWS.  loi 

man  like  Mr.  Beecher  draws  a  congregation,  not  because  he 
is  a  Christian,  but  because  he  is  a  genius ;  not  because  he 
is  orthodox,  but  because  he  has  something  to  say.  He  is 
an  intellectual  athlete.  He  is  full  of  pathos  and  poetry. 
He  has  more  description  than  divinity ;  more  charity  than 
creed,  and  altogether  more  common  sense  than  theology. 
For  these  reasons  thousands  of  people  love  to  hear  him. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  people  who  have  a 
morbid  desire  for  the  abnormal — for  intellectual  deformities 
— for  thoughts  that  have  two  heads.  This  accounts  for  the 
success  of  some  of  Mr.  Beecher's  rivals. 

Christians  claim  that  success  is  a  test  of  truth.  Has  any 
church  succeeded  as  well  as  the  Catholic  ?  Was  the  tragedy 
of  the  Garden  of  Eden  a  success  ?  Who  succeeded  there  ? 
The  last  best  thought  is  not  a  success,  if  you  mean  that 
only  that  is  a  success  which  has  succeeded,  and  if  you 
mean  by  succeeding,  that  it  has  won  the  assent  of  the  ma- 
jority. Besides  there  is  no  time  fixed  for  the  test.  Is  that 
true  which  succeeds  to-day,  or  next  year,  or  in  the  next 
century  ?  Once  the  Copernican  system  was  not  a  success. 
There  is  no  time  fixed.  The  result  is  we  have  to  wait.  A 
thing  to  exist  at  all  has  to  be,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  success. 
A.  thing  cannot  even  die  without  having  been  a  success. 
It  certainly  succeeded  enough  to  have  life.  Presbyterians 
should  remember,  while  arguing  the  majority  argument, 
and  the  success  argument,  that  there  are  far  more  Cath- 
olics than  Protestants,  and  that  the  Catholics  can  give  a 
longer  list  of  distinguished  names. 

My  answer  to  all  this,  however,  is  that  the  history  of  the 
world  shows  that  ignorance  has  always  been  in  the  ma- 
jority. There  is  one  right  road  ;  numberless  paths  that  are 
wrong.  Truth  is  one  ;  error  is  many.  When  a  great  truth 
has  been  discovered,  one  man  has  pitted  himself  against  the 
world.  A  few  think  ;  the  many  believe.  The  few  lead  ; 
the  many  follow.     The  light  of  the  new  day,  as  it  looks 


1 62  INTERVIEWS. 

over  the  window  sill  of  the  east,  falls  at  first  on  only  one 
forehead. 

There  is  another  thing.  A  great  many  people  pass  for 
Christians  who  are  not.  Only  a  little  while  ago  a  couple  of 
ladies  were  returning  from  church  in  a  carriage.  They  had 
listened  to  a  good  orthodox  sermon.  One  said  to  the  other  : 
"  I  am  going  to  tell  you  something — I  am  going  to  shock 
you — I  do  not  believe  the  Bible."     And  the  other  replied : 

"Neither  do  I." — The  News,  HQtvoH,  Michigan,  Januarys,  1884. 

POLITICS,  MORMONISM  AND  MR.  BEECHER 

Question.  What  will  be  the  main  issues  in  the  next 
presidental  campaign  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  the  principal  issues  will  be  civil 
rights  and  protection  for  American  industries.  The  Demo- 
cratic party  is  not  a  unit  on  the  tariff  question — neither  is 
the  Republican ;  but  I  think  that  a  majority  of  the  Demo- 
crats are  in  favor  of  free  trade  and  a  majority  of  Republi- 
cans in  favor  of  a  protective  tariff.  The  Democratic  Con- 
gressmen will  talk  just  enough  about  free  trade  to  frighten 
the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country,  and  probably 
not  quite  enough  to  satisfy  the  free  traders.  The  result 
will  be  that  the  Democrats  will  talk  about  reforming  the 
tariff,  but  will  do  nothing  but  talk.  I  think  the  tariff 
ought  to  be  reformed  in  man3^  particulars ;  but  as  long  as 
we  need  to  raise  a  great  revenue  my  idea  is  that  it  ought 
to  be  so  arranged  as  to  protect  to  the  utmost,  without  pro- 
ducing monopoly  in  American  manufacturers.  I  am  in 
favor  of  protection  because  it  multiplies  industries  ;  and  I 
am  in  favor  of  a  great  number  of  industries  because  they 
develop  the  brain,  because  they  give  employment  to  all  and 
allow  us  to  utilize  all  the  muscle  and  all  the  sense  we  have. 
If  we  were  all  farmers  we  would  grow  stupid.  If  we  all 
worked  at  one  kind  of  mechanic  art  we  would  grow  dull. 


INTERVIEWS.  163 


^ 


But  with  a  variety  of  industries,  with  a  constant  premium 
upon  ingenuity,  with  the  promise  of  wealth  as  the  reward 
of  success  in  any  direction,  the  people  become  intelligent, 
and  while  we  are  protecting  our  industries  we  develop  our 
brains.  So  I  am  in  favor  of  the  protection  of  civil  rights 
by  the  Federal  Government,  and  that,  in  my  judgment, 
will  be  one  of  the  great  issues  in  the  next  campaign. 

Question.  I  see  that  you  say  that  one  of  the  great  issues 
of  the  coming  campaign  will  be  civil  rights ;  what  do  you 
mean  by  that  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  mean  this.  The  Supreme  Court  has 
recently  decided  that  a  colored  man  whose  rights  are 
trampled  upon,  in  a  State,  cannot  appeal  to  the  Federal 
Government  for  protection.  The  decision  amounts  to  this: 
That  Congress  has  no  right  until  a  State  has  acted,  and  has 
acted  contrary  to  the  Constitution.  Now,  if  a  State  refuses 
to  do  anything  upon  the  subject,  what  is  the  citizen  to  do  ? 
My  opinion  is  that  the  Government  is  bound  to  protect  its 
citizens,  and  as  a  consideration  for  this  protection,  the 
citizen  is  bound  to  stand  by  the  Government.  When  the 
nation  calls  for  troops,  the  citizen  of  each  State  is  bound 
to  respond,  no  matter  what  his  State  may  think.  This 
doctrine  must  be  maintained,  or  the  United  States  ceases 
to  be  a  nation.  If  a  man  looks  to  his  State  for  protection, 
then  he  must  go  with  his  State.  My  doctrine  is,  that  there 
should  be  patriotism  upon  the  one  hand,  and  protection 
upon  the  other.  If  a  State  endeavors  to  secede  from  the 
Union,  a  citizen  of  that  State  should  be  in  a  position  to 
defy  the  State  and  appeal  to  the  Nation  for  protection. 
The  doctrine  now  is,  that  the  General  Government  turns 
the  citizen  over  to  the  State  for  protection,  and  if  the  State 
does  not  protect  him,  that  is  his  misfortune ;  and  the  con- 
sequence of  this  doctrine  will  be  to  build  up  the  old  heresy 
of  State  Sovereignty — a  doctrine  that  was  never  appealed 
to  except   in  the  interest  of  thieving   or  robbery.     That 


164  INTERVIEWS. 

doctrine  was  first  appealed  to  when  the  Constitution  was 
formed,  because  they  were  afraid  the  National  Government 
would  interfere  with  the  slave  trade.  It  was  next  appealed 
to,  to  uphold  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  It  was  next  appealed 
to,  to  give  the  territories  of  the  United  States  to  slavery. 
Then  it  was  appealed  to,  to  support  rebellion,  and  nov/  out 
of  this  doctrine  they  attempt  to  build  a  breastwork,  behind 
which  they  can  trample  upon  the  rights  of  free  colored 
men. 

I  believe  in  the  sovereignty  of  the  Nation.  A  nation 
that  cannot  protect  its  citizens  ought  to  stop  playing 
nation.  In  the  old  times  the  Supreme  Court  found  no 
difficult}^  in  supporting  slavery  by  "  inference  ",  b}^  "  intend- 
ment," but  now  that  liberty  has  became  national,  the  Court 
is  driven  to  less  than  a  literal  interpretation.  If  the  Con- 
stitution does  not  support  liberty,  it  is  of  no  use.  To 
maintain  liberty  is  the  only  legitimate  object  of  human 
government.  I  hope  the  time  will  come  when  the  judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  will  be  elected,  say  for  a  period 
of  ten  years.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  legal  monk  system. 
I  believe  in  judges  still  maintaining  an  interest  in  human 
affairs. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Mormon  question  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  bayonet  plan.  Mormon- 
ism  must  be  done  away  with  by  the  thousand  influences  of 
civilization,  by  education,  by  the  elevation  of  the  people. 
Of  course,  a  gentleman  would  rather  have  one  noble  woman 
than  a  hundred  females.  I  hate  the  system  of  polygamy. 
Nothing  is  more  infamous.  I  admit  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment upholds  it.  I  admit  that  the  patriarchs  were  mostly 
polygamists.  I  admit  that  Solomon  was  mistaken  on  that 
subject.  But  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  polygamy  is 
upheld  by  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  I  believe  it  to  be  a  great 
wrong.  At  the  same  time  if  you  undertake  to  get  that 
idea  out  of  the  Mormons  by  force  you  will  not  succeed.    7 


INTERVIEWS.  165 

think  a  good  way  to  do  away  with  that  institution  would 
be  for  all  the  churches  to  unite,  bear  the  expense,  and  send 
missionaries  to  Utah ;  let  these  ministers  call  the  people 
together  and  read  to  them  the  lives  of  David,  Solomon 
Abraham  and  other  patriarchs.  Let  all  the  missionaries 
be  called  home  from  foreign  fields  and  teach  these  people 
that  they  should  not  imitate  the  only  men  with  whom  God 
ever  condescended  to  hold  intercourse.  Let  these  frightful 
examples  be  held  up  to  these  people,  and  if  it  is  done  earn- 
estly, it  seems  to  me  that  the  result  w^ould  be  good. 

Polygamy  exists.  All  law^s  upon  the  subject  should  take 
that  fact  into  consideration,  and  punishment  should  be 
provided  for  offences  thereafter  committed.  The  children 
of  Mormons  should  be  legitimatized.  In  other  words,  in 
attempting  to  settle  this  question,  we  should  accomplish  all 
the  good  possible,  with  the  least  possible  harm. 

I  agree  mostly  with  Mr.  Beecher,  and  I  utterly  disagree 
with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Newman.  Mr.  Newman  wants  to  kill 
and  slay.  He  does  not  rely  upon  Christianity,  but  upon 
brute  force.  He  has  lost  his  confidence  in  example,  and 
appeals  to  the  bayonet.  Mr.  Newman  had  a  discussion 
with  one  of  the  Mormon  elders,  and  was  put  to  ignominious 
flight ;  no  wonder  that  he  appeals  to  force.  Having  failed 
in  argument,  he  calls  for  artillery ;  having  been  worsted  in 
the  appeal  to  Scripture,  he  asks  for  the  sword.  He  says, 
failing  to  convert,  let  us  kill ;  and  he  takes  this  position  in 
the  name  of  the  religion  of  kindness  and  forgiveness. 

Strange  that  a  minister  now  should  throw  away  the  Bible 
and  yell  for  a  bayonet ;  that  he  should  desert  the  Scriptures 
and  call  for  soldiers  ;  that  he  should  lose  confidence  in  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  and  trust  in  the  sword.  I  recommend 
that  Mormonism  be  done  away  with  by  distributing  the 
Old  Testament  through  Utah. 

Question,  What  do  you  think  of  the  investigation  of  the 
department  of  Justice  now  going  on  ? 


1 66  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  The  result,  in  my  judgment,  will  depend  on  its 
thoroughness.  If  Mr.  Springer  succeeds  in  proving  exactly 
what  the  Department  of  Justice  did,  the  methods  pursued; 
if  he  finds  out  what  their  spies  and  detectives  and  agents 
were  instructed  to  do,  then  I  think  the  result  will  be  as 
disastrous  to  the  Department  as  beneficial  to  the  country. 
The  people  seem  to  have  forgotten  that  a  little  while  after 
the  first  Star  Route  trial  three  of  the  agents  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice  were  indicted  for  endeavoring  to  bribe  the 
jury.  They  forget  that  Mr.  Bowen,  an  agent  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Justice,  is  a  fugitive,  because  he  endeavored  to 
bribe  the  foreman  of  the  jury.  They  seem  to  forget  that 
the  Department  of  Justice,  in  order  to  cover  its  own  tracks, 
had  the  foreman  of  the  jury  indicted  because  one  of  its 
agents  endeavored  to  bribe  him.  Probably  this  investiga- 
tion will  nudge  the  ribs  of  the  public  enough  to  make 
people  remember  these  things.  Personally,  I  have  no  feel- 
ing on  the  subject.  It  was  enough  for  me  that  we  suc- 
ceeded in  thwarting  its  methods,  in  spite  of  its  detectives, 
spies,  and  informers. 

The  Department  is  already  beginning  to  dissolve.  Brewster 
Cameron  has  left  it,  and  as  a  reward  has  been  exiled  to 
Arizona.  Mr.  Brewster  will  probably  be  the  next  to  pack 
his  official  valise.  A  few  men  endeavored  to  win  popularity 
by  pursuing  a  few  others,  and  thus  far  they  have  been  con- 
spicuous failures.  MacVeagh  and  James  are  to-day  enjoying 
the  oblivion  earned  by  misdirected  energy,  and  Mr.  Brewster 
will  soon  keep  them  company.  The  history  of  the  world 
does  not  furnish  an  instance  of  more  flagrant  abuse  of 
power.  There  never  was  a  trial  as  shamelessly  conducted 
by  a  government.  But,  as  I  said  before,  I  have  no  feeling 
now  except  that  of  pity. 

Question,  I  see  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  coming  round  to  your 
views  on  theology  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not  have  the  egotism  to  say  that  he  was 


INTERVIEWS.  167 

coming  round  to  my  views,  but  evidently  Mr.  Beecher  has 
been  growing.  His  head  has  been  instructed  by  his  heart ; 
and  if  a  man  will  allow  even  the  poor  plant  of  pity  to  grow 
in  his  heart  he  will  hold  in  infinite  execration  all  orthodox 
religion.  The  moment  he  will  allow  himself  to  think  that 
eternal  consequences  depend  upon  human  life ;  that  the  few 
short  years  we  live  in  this  world  determine  for  an  eternity 
the  question  of  infinite  joy  or  infinite  pain  ;  the  moment  he 
thinks  of  that  he  will  see  that  it  is  an  infinite  absurdity. 
For  instance,  a  man  is  born  in  Arkansas  and  lives  there  to 
be  seventeen  or  eighteen  years  of  age;  is  it  possible  that  he 
can  be  truthfully  told  at  the  day  of  judgment  that  he  had  a 
fair  chance?  Just  imagine  a  man  being  held  eternally 
responsible  for  his  conduct  in  Delaware !  Mr.  Beecher  is  a 
man  of  great  genius — full  of  poetry  and  pathos.  Every  now 
and  then  he  is  driven  back  by  the  orthodox  members  of  his 
congregation  toward  the  old  religion,  and  for  the  benefit  of 
those  weak  disciples  he  will  preach  what  is  called  "a  doc- 
trinal sermon;"  but  before  he  gets  through  with  it,  seeing 
it  is  infinitely  cruel,  he  utters  a  cry  of  horror,  and  protests 
with  all  the  strength  of  his  nature  against  the  cruelty  of  the 
creed.  I  imagine  that  he  has  always  thought  that  he  was 
under  great  obligation  to  Plymouth  Church,  but  the  truth 
is  that  that  church  depends  upon  him ;  that  church  gets  its 
character  from  Mr.  Beecher.  He  has  done  a  vast  deal  to 
ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  average  orthodox  mind. 
He  excites  the  envy  of  the  mediocre  minister,  and  he  excites 
the  hatred  of  the  really  orthodox,  but  he  receives  the  appro- 
bation of  good  and  generous  men  everywhere.  For  my 
part,  I  have  no  quarrel  with  any  religion  that  does  not 
threaten  eternal  punishment  to  very  good  people,  and  that 
does  not  promise  eternal  reward  to  very  bad  people.  If 
orthodox  Christianity  be  true,  some  of  the  best  people  I 
know  are  going  to  hell,  and  some  of  the  meanest  I  have  ever 
known  are  either  in  heaven  or  on  the  road.     Of  course,  I 


268  INTERVIEWS. 

admit  that  there  are  thousands  and  millions  of  good  Chris- 
tians— honest  and  noble  people,  but  in  my  judgment,  Mr. 
Beecher  is  the  greatest  man  in  the  world  who  now  occupies 
a  pulpit.     ***** 

Speaking  of  a  man's  living  in  Delaware,  a  young  man, 
some  time  ago,  came  up  to  me  on  the  street,  in  an  Eastern 
city  and  asked  for  money.  "What  is  your  business,"  I 
asked.  "I  am  a  waiter  by  profession."  "Where  do  you 
come  from?"  "Delaware."  "  Well,  what  was  the  matter — 
did  you  drink,  or  cheat  your  employer,  or  were  you  idle?" 
"  No."  "  What  was  the  trouble  ?  "  "  Well,  the  truth  is,  the 
State  is  so  small  they  don't  need  any  waiters ;  they  all  reach 
for  what  they  want." 

Questioji.  Do  you  not  think  there  are  some  dangerous 
tendencies  in  Liberalism? 

Answer.  I  will  first  state  this  proposition:  The  credit 
system  in  morals,  as  in  business,  breeds  extravagance.  The 
Cash  system  in  morals,  as  well  as  in  business,  breeds 
economy.  We  will  suppose  a  community  in  which  every- 
body is  bound  to  sell  on  credit,  and  in  which  every  creditor 
can  take  the  benefit  of  the  bankrupt  law  every  Saturday 
night,  and  the  constable  pa3^s  the  costs.  In  my  judgment 
that  community  would  be  extravagant  as  long  as  the  mer- 
chants lasted.  We  will  take  another  community  in  which 
everybody  has  to  pay  cash,  and  in  my  judgment  that  com- 
munity will  be  a  very  economical  one.  Now,  then,  let  us 
apply  this  to  morals.  Christianity  allows  everybod}^  to  sin 
on  a  credit,  and  allows  a  man  who  has  lived,  we  will  say 
sixty-nine  years,  what  Christians  are  pleased  to  call  a 
worldly  life,  an  immoral  life.  They  allow  him  on  his  death- 
bed, between  the  last  dose  of  medicine  and  the  last  breath, 
to  be  converted,  and  that  man  who  has  done  nothing  except 
evil,  becomes  an  angel.  Here  is  another  man  who  has  lived 
the  same  length  of  time,  doing  all  the  good  he  possibly 
could  do,  but  not  meeting  with  what  they  are  pleased  to  call 


INTERVIEWS.  169 

-"^a  change  of  heart ; "  he  goes  to  a  world  of  pain.  Now,  my 
doctrine  is  that  ever3^body  must  reap  exactly  what  he  sows, 
other  things  being  equal.  If  he  acts  badly  he  will  not  be 
very  happy  ;  if  he  acts  well  he  will  not  be  very  sad.  I 
believe  in  the  doctrine  of  consequences,  and  that  everj'' 
man  must  stand  the  consequences  of  his  own  acts.  It  seems 
to  me  that  that  fact  will  have  a  greater  restraining  influence 
than  the  idea  that  you  can,  just  before  you  leave  this  world, 
shift  your  burden  on  to  somebody  else.  I  am  a  believer  in 
the  restraining  influences  of  liberty,  because  responsibility 
goes  hand  in  hand  with  freedom.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
gallows  is  the  last  step  between  earth  and  heaven.  I  do  not 
believe  in  the  conversion  and  salvation  of  murderers  while 
their  innocent  victims  are  in  hell.  The  church  has  taught 
so  long  that  he  who  acts  virtuously  carries  a  cross,  and  that 
only  sinners  enjoy  themselves,  that  it  may  be  that  for  a 
little  while  after  men  leave  the  church  they  may  go  to 
extremes  until  they  demonstrate  for  themselves  that  the 
path  of  vice  is  the  path  of  thorns,  and  that  only  along  the 
wayside  of  virtue  grow  the  flowers  of  joy.  The  church  has 
depicted  virtue  as  a  sour,  wrinkled  termagant;  an  old 
woman  with  nothing  but  skin  and  bones,  and  a  temper 
beyond  description;  and  at  the  same  time  vice  has  been 
painted  in  all  the  voluptuous  outlines  of  a  Greek  statue. 
The  truth  is  exactly  the  other  way.  A  thing  is  right 
because  it  pays ;  a  thing  is  wrong  because  it  does  not ;  and 
when  I  use  the  word  ''pays,"  I  mean  in  the  highest  and 

noblest  sense. —  The  Daily  News,  Denver,  Colorado,  January  17,  18a4. 

FREE  TRADE  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

Question.  Who  will  be  the  Republican  nominee  for  Presi- 
dent? 

Answer,  The  correct  answer  to  this  question  would  make 
so  many  men  unhappy  that  I  have  concluded  not  to  give  it. 

Question.  Has  not  the  Democracy  injured  itself  irretrieva- 
bly by  permitting  the  free  trade  element  to  rul^  it  ? 


lyo  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  the  Democratic  party  weak- 
ened itself  by  electing  Carlisle,  Speaker.  I  think  him  an 
excellent  man,  an  exceedingly  candid  man,  and  one  who  will 
do  what  he  believes  ought  to  be  done.  I  have  a  very  high 
opinion  of  Mr.  Carlisle.  I  do  not  suppose  any  party  in  this 
country  is  really  for  free  trade.  I  find  that  all  writers  upon 
the  subject,  no  matter  which  side  they  are  on,  are  on  that 
side  with  certain  exceptions.  Adam  Smith  was  in  favor  of 
free  trade,  with  a  few  exceptions,  and  those  exceptions  were 
in  matters  where  he  thought  it  was  for  England's  interests 
not  to  have  free  trade.  The  same  may  be  said  of  all  writers. 
So  far  as  I  can  see,  the  free  traders  have  all  the  arguments 
and  the  protectionists  all  the  facts.  The  free  trade  theories 
are  splendid,  but  they  will  not  work ;  the  results  are  disas- 
trous. We  find  by  actual  experiment  that  it  is  better  to 
protect  home  industries.  It  was  once  said  that  protection 
created  nothing  but  monopoly;  the  argument  was  that  way; 
but  the  facts  are  not.  Take,  for  instance,  steel  rails ;  when 
we  bought  them  of  England  we  paid  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  dollars  a  ton.  I  believe  there  was  a  tariff  of 
twenty-eight  or  twenty-nine  dollars  a  ton,  and  yet  in  spite 
of  all  the  arguments  going  to  show  that  protection  would 
simply  increase  prices  in  America,  would  simply  enrich  the 
capitalist  and  impoverish  the  consumer,  steel  rails  are  now 
produced,  I  believe,  right  here  in  Colorado  for  forty-two 
dollars  a  ton. 

After  all,  it  is  a  question  of  labor;  a  question  of  prices  that 
shall  be  paid  the  laboring  man ;  a  question  of  what  the  labor- 
ing man  shall  eat ;  whether  he  shall  eat  meat  or  soup  made 
from  the  bones.  Very  few  people  take  into  consideration 
the  value  of  raw  material  and  the  value  of  labor.  Take,  for 
instance,  your  ton  of  steel  rails  v^^orth  forty-two  dollars. 
The  iron  in  the  earth  is  not  worth  twenty-five  cents.  The 
coal  in  the  earth  and  the  lime  in  the  ledge  together  are  not 
worth  twenty-five  cents.     Now,  then,  of  the  forty-two  dollars. 


INTERVIEWS. 


171 


forty-one  and  a  half  is  labor.  There  is  not  two  dollar's  worth 
of  raw  material  in  a  locomotive  worth  fifteen  thousand  dol- 
lars. By  raw  material  I  mean  the  material  in  the  earth. 
There  is  not  in  the  works  of  a  watch  which  will  sell  for 
fifteen  dollars,  raw^  material  of  the  value  of  one-half  cent. 
All  the  rest  is  labor.  A  ship,  a  man-of-war  that  costs  one 
million  dollars — the  raw  material  in  the  earth  is  not  worth, 
in  my  judgment,  one  thousand  dollars.  All  the  rest  is  labor. 
If  there  is  any  way  to  protect  American  labor,  I  am  in  favor 
of  it.  If  the  present  tariff  does  not  ^do  it,  then  I  am  in  favor 
of  changing  to  one  that  will.  If  the  Democratic  party  takes 
a  stand  for  free  trade  or  anything  like  it,  they  will  need  pro- 
tection ;  they  wdll  need  protection  at  the  polls ;  that  is  to  say, 
they  will  meet  only  with  defeat  and  disaster. 

Question.     What  should  be  done  with  the  surplus  revenue  ? 

Answer.  My  answer  to  that  is,  reduce  internal  revenue 
taxation  until  the  present  surplus  is  exhausted,  and  then 
endeavor  so  to  arrange  your  tariff  that  you  will  not  produce 
more  than  you  need.  I  think  the  easiest  question  to  grapple 
with  on  this  earth  is  a  surplus  of  money. 

I  do  not  believe  in  distributing  it  among  the  States.  I  do 
not  think  there  could  be  a  better  certificate  of  the  prosperity 
of  our  country  than  the  fact  that  we  are  troubled  with  a  sur- 
plus revenue;  that  we  have  the  machinery  for  collecting 
taxes  in  such  perfect  order,  so  ingeniously  contrived,  that  it 
cannot  be  stopped ;  that  it  goes  right  on  collecting  money, 
whether  we  want  it  or  not ;  and  the  wonderful  thing  about 
it  is  that  nobody  complains.  If  nothing  else  can  be  done 
with  the  surplus  revenue,  probably  we  had  better  pay  some 
of  our  debts.  I  would  suggest,  as  a  last  resort,  to  pay  a  few 
honest  claims. 

Question.  Are  you  getting  nearer  to  or  farther  away  from 
God,  Christianity  and  the  Bible  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  as  Mr.  Locke  so  often  re- 
marked, we  will  define  our  terms.     If  by  the  word  '*  God " 


172  INTERVIEWS. 

is  meant  a  persan,  a  being,  who  existed  before  the  creation 
of  the  universe,  and  who  controls  all  that  is,  except  himself, 
I  do  not  believe  in  such  a  being ;  but  if  by  the  word  God  is 
meant  all  that  is,  that  is  to  say,  the  universe,  including  every 
atom  and  every  star,  then  I  am  a  believer.  I  suppose  the 
word  that  would  nearest  describe  me  is  "  Pantheist."  I  can- 
not believe  that  a  being  existed  from  eternity,  and  who 
finally  created  this  universe  after  having  wasted  an  eternity 
in  idleness;  but  upon  this  subject  I  know  just  as  little  as 
anybody  ever  did  or  ever  will,  and,  in  my  judgment,  just  as 
much.  My  intellectual  horizon  is  somewhat  limited,  and,  to 
tell  you  the  truth,  this  is  the  only  world  that  I  was  ever  in. 
I  am  what  might  be  called  a  representative  of  a  rural  dis- 
trict, and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  know  very  little  about  my 
district,  I  believe  it  was  Confucius  who  said:  "How  should 
I  know  anything  about  another  world  when  I  know  so  little 
of  this?" 

The  greatest  intellects  of  the  world  have  endeavored  to 
find  words  to  express  their  conception  of  God,  of  the  first, 
cause,  or  of  the  science  of  being,  but  they  have  never  suc- 
ceeded. I  find  in  the  old  Confession  of  Faith,  in  the  old 
Catechism,  for  instance,  this  description :  that  God  is  a  being 
without  body,  parts  or  passions.  I  think  it  would  trouble 
anybody  to  find  a  better  definition  of  nothing.  That  de- 
scribes a  vacuum,  that  is  to  say,  that  describes  the  absence  of 
everything.  I  find  that  theology  is  a  subject  that  only  the 
most  ignorant  are  certain  about,  and  that  the  more  a  man 
thinks,  the  less  he  knows. 

From  the  Bible  God,  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  going  far- 
ther and  farther  away.  I  have  been  about  as  far  as  a  man 
could  get  for  many  years„  I  do  not  believe  in  the  God  of 
the  Old  Testament, 

Now,  as  to  the  next  branch  of  your  question,  Christianity. 

The  question  arises.  What  is  Christianity  ?  I  have  no  ob- 
jection to  the  morality  taught  as  a  part  of  Christianity,  no 


INTERVIEWS.  173 

objection  to  its  charity,  its  forgiveness,  its  kindness ;  no  ob- 
jection to  its  hope  for  this  world  and  another,  not  the  slight- 
est, but  all  these  things  do  not  make  Christianity.  Mo- 
hammed taught  certain  doctrines  that  are  good,  but  the  good 
in  the  teachings  of  Mohammed  is  not  Mohammedism.  When 
I  speak  of  Christianity  I  speak  of  that  which  is  distinctly 
Christian.  For  instance,  the  idea  that  the  Infinite  God  was 
born  in  Palestine,  learned  the  carpenter's  trade,  disputed 
with  the  parsons  of  his  time,  excited  the  wrath  of  the  theo- 
logical bigots,  and  was  finally  crucified  ;  that  afterward  he 
was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  that  if  anybody  believes  this- 
he  will  be  saved  and  if  he  fails  to  believe  it,  he  will  be  lost ;  in 
other  words,  that  which  is  distinctly  Christian  in  the 
Christian  system,  is  its  supernaturalism,  its  miracles,  its  ab- 
surdity. Truth  does  not  need  to  go  into  partnership  with 
the  supernatural.  What  Christ  said  is  worth  the  reason  it 
contains.  If  a  man  raises  the  dead  and  then  says  twice  two 
are  five,  that  changes  no  rule  in  mathematics.  If  a  multipli- 
cation table  was  divinely  inspired,  that  does  no  good.  The 
question  is,  is  it  correct  ?  So  I  think  that  in  the  world  of 
morals,  we  must  prove  that  a  thing  is  right  or  wrong  by  ex- 
perience, by  analogy,  not  by  miracles.  *  There  is  no  fact  in 
physical  science  that  can  be  supematurally  demonstrated. 
Neither  is  there  any  fact  in  the  moral  world  that  could  be 
substantiated  by  miracles.  Now,  then,  keeping  in  mind 
that  by  Christianity  I  mean  the  supernatural  in  that  system, 
of  course  I  am  just  as  far  away  from  it  as  I  can  ever  get. 
For  the  man  Christ  I  have  respect.  He  was  an  infidel  in 
his  day,  and  the  ministers  of  his  day  cried  out  blasphemy, 
as  they  have  been  crying  ever  since,  against  every  person 
who  has  suggested  a  new  thought  or  shown  the  worthless- 
ness  of  an  old  one. 

Now,  as  to  the  third  part  of  the  question,  the  Bible. 
People  say  that  the  Bible  is  inspired.  Well  what  does  in- 
spiration mean  ?     Did  God  write  it  ?     No ;  but  the  men 


174  INTERVIEWS. 

who  did  write  it  were  guided  bj'  the  Holy  Spirit.  Very 
well.  Did  they  write  exactly  what  the  Holy  Spirit  wanted 
them  to  write  ?  Well,  religious  people  say,  yes.  At  the 
same  time  they  admit  that  the  gentlemen  who  were  collect- 
ing, or  taking  down  in  shorthand  what  was  said,  had  to  use 
their  own  words.  Now,  we  all  know  that  the  same  words 
do  not  have  the  same  meaning  to  all  people.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  convey  the  same  thoughts  to  all  minds  by  the  same 
language,  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that  the  Bible  has  pro- 
duced so  many  sects,  not  only  disagreeing  with  each  other, 
but  disagreeing  among  themselves. 

We  find,  then,  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  God  (ad- 
mitting that  there  is  one)  to  convey  the  same  thoughts  by 
human  language  to  all  people.  No  two  persons  understand 
the  same  language  alike.  A  man's  understanding  depends 
upon  his  experience,  upon  his  capacity,  upon  the  particular 
bent  of  his  mind — in  fact,  upon  the  countless  influences  that 
have  made  him  what  he  is.  Everything  in  nature  tells 
everyone  who  sees  it  a  story,  but  that  story  depends  upon 
the  capacity  of  the  one  to  whom  it  is  told.  The  sea  says 
one  thing  to  the  ordinary  man,  and  another  thing  to  Shakes- 
peare. The  stars  have  not  the  same  language  for  all  peo- 
ple. The  consequence  is  that  no  book  can  tell  the  same 
story  to  any  two  persons.  The  Jewish  Scriptures  are  like 
other  books,  written  by  different  men  in  different  ages  of 
the  world,  hundreds  of  years  apart,  filled  with  contradictions. 
They  embody,  I  presume,  fairly  enough,  the  wisdom  and  ig- 
norance, the  reason  and  prejudice,  of  the  times  in  which 
they  were  written.  They  are  worth  the  good  that  is  in  them, 
and  the  question  is  whether  we  will  take  the  good  and  throw 
the  bad  away.  There  are  good  laws  and  bad  laws.  There 
are  wise  and  foolish  sayings.  There  are  gentle  and  cruel 
passages,  and  you  can  find  a  text  to  suit  almost  any  frame  of 
mind ;  whether  you  wish  to  do  an  act  of  charity  or  murder  a 
neighbor's  babe,  you  will  find  a  passage  that  will  exactly  fit 


INTERVIEWS^  175 

the  case.  So  that  I  can  say  that  I  am  still  for  the  reason- 
able, for  the  natural ;  and  am  still  opposed  to  the  absurd  and 
supernatural 

Question.  Is  there  any  better  or  more  ennobling  belief  than 
Christianity ;  if  so,  what  is  it  ? 

Answer.  There  are  many  good  things,  of  course,  in  every 
religion,  or  they  would  not  have  existed ;  plenty  of  good 
precepts  in  Christianity,  but  the  thing  that  I  object  to  more 
than  all  others  is  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment,  the 
idea  of  hell  for  many  and  heaven  for  the  few.  Take  from 
Christianity  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  and  I  have 
no  particular  objection  to  what  is  generally  preached.  If 
you  will  take  that  away,  and  all  the  supernatural  connected 
with  it,  I  have  no  objection; but  that  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment  tends  to  harden  the  human  heart.  It  has  pro- 
duced more  misery  than  all  the  other  doctrines  in  the  world. 
It  has  shed  more  blood ;  it  has  made  more  martyrs.  It  has 
lighted  the  fires  of  persecution  and  kept  the  sword  of  cruelty 
wet  with  heroic  blood  for  at  least  a  thousand  years.  There 
is  no  crime  that  that  doctrine  has  not  produced.  I  think  it 
would  be  impossible  for  the  imagination  to  conceive  of  a 
worse  religion  than  orthodox  Christianity — utterly  impos- 
sible; a  doctrine  that  divides  this  world,  a  doctrine  that 
divides  families,  a  doctrine  that  teaches  the  son  that  he 
can  be  happy,  with  his  mother  in  perdition ;  the  husband 
that  he  can  be  happy  in  heaven  while  his  wife  suffers 
the  agonies  of  hell.  This  doctrine  is  infinite  injustice,  and 
tends  to  subvert  all  ideas  of  justice  in  the  human  heart.  I 
think  it  would  be  impossible  to  conceive  of  a  doctrine 
better  calculated  to  make  wild  beasts  of  men  than  that; 
in  fact,  that  doctrine  was  born  of  all  the  wild  beast  there  is 
in  man.    It  was  born  of  infinite  revenge. 

Think  of  preaching  that  you  must  believe  that  a  certain 
being  was  the  son  of  God,  no  matter  whether  your  reason  is 
convinced  or  not.  Suppose  one  should  meet,  we  will  sa}^  on 


176  INTERVIEWS. 

London  Bridge,  a  man  clad  in  rags,  ana  ne  should  stop  us 
and  say, "  My  friend,  I  wish  to  talk  with  you  a  moment.  I  am 
the  rightful  King  of  Great  Britain,"  and  you  should  say  to 
him,  "  Well,  my  dinner  is  waiting ;  I  have  no  time  to  bother 
about  who  the  King  of  England  is,"  and  then  he  should 
meet  another  and  insist  on  his  stop'ping  while  he  pulled 
out  some  papers  to  show  that  he  was  the  rightful  King  of 
England,  and  the  other  man  should  say,  "  I  have  got  busi- 
ness here,  my  friend ;  I  am  selling  goods,  and  I  have  no 
time  to  bother  my  head  about  who  the  King  of  England  is. 
No  doubt  you  are  the  King  of  England,  but  you  don't  look 
like  him."  And  then  suppose  he  stops  another  man,  and 
makes  the  same  statement  to  him,  and  tbe  other  man  should 
laugh  at  him  and  say,  ''  I  don't  want  to  hear  anything  on 
this  subject ;  you  are  crazy ;  you  ought  to  go  to  some  in- 
sane asylum,  or  put  something  on  your  head  to  keep  you 
cool,"  And  suppose,  after  all,  it  should  turn  out  that  the 
man  was  King  of  England,  and  should  afterward  make  his 
claim  good  and  be  crowned  in  Westminster.  What  would 
we  think  of  that  King  if  he  should  hunt  up  the  gentlemen 
that  he  met  on  London  Bridge,  and  have  their  heads  cut  off 
because  they  had  no  faith  that  he  was  the  rightful  heir  ? 
And  what  would  we  think  of  a  God  now  who  would  damn 
a  man  eighteen  hundred  years  after  the  event,  because 
he  did  not  believe  that  he  was  God  at  the  time  he  was  liv- 
ing in  Jerusalem ;  not  only  damn  the  fellows  that  he  met, 
and  who  did  not  believe  in  him,  but  gentlemen  who  lived 
eighteen  hundred  years  afterward,  and  who  certainly  could 
have  known  nothing  of  the  facts  except  from  hearsay. 

The  best  religion,  after  all,  is  common  sense;  a  religion 
for  this  world,  one  world  at  a  time,  a  religion  for  to-day. 
We  want  a  religion  that  will  deal  in  questions  in  which  we 
are  interested.  How  are  we  to  do  away  with  crime?  How 
are  we  to  do  away  with  pauperism  ?  How  are  we  to  do 
away  with  the  want  and  misery  in  every  civilized  country  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  177 

England  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  yet  about  one  in  six  in 
the  city  of  London  dies  in  almshouses,  asylums,  prisons, 
hospitals  and  jails.  We,  I  suppose,  are  a  civilized  nation. 
and  yet  all  the  penitentiaries  are  crammed  ;  there  is  want  on 
every  hand,  and  my  opinion  is  that  we  had  better  turn  our 
attention  to  this  world. 

Christianity  is  charitable ;  Christianity  spends  a  great  deal 
of  money;  but  I  am  somewhat  doubtful  as  to  the  good  that 
is  accomplished.  There  ought  to  be  some  way  to  prevent 
crime;  not  simply  to  punish  it.  There  ought  to  be  some 
way  to  prevent  pauperism,  not  simply  to  relieve  temporarily 
a  pauper,  and  if  the  ministers  and  good  people  belonging  to 
the  churches  would  spend  their  time  investigating  the  affairs 
of  this  world  and  let  the  New  Jerusalem  take  care  of  itself,  I 
think  it  would  be  far  better. 

The  church  is  guilty  of  one  great  contradiction.  The 
ministers  are  always  talking  about  worldly  people,  and  yet, 
were  it  not  for  worldly  people,  who  would  pay  the  salary  ? 
How  could  the  church  live  a  minute  unless  somebody  at- 
tended to  the  affairs  of  this  world  ?  The  best  religion,  in 
my  judgment,  is  common  sense  going  along  hand  in  hand 
with  kindness,  and  not  troubling  ourselves  about  another 
world  until  we  get  there.  I  am  willing  for  one,  to  wait  and 
see  what  kind  of  a  country  it  will  be. 

Question.  Does  the  question  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  affect  the  beauty  and  benefits  of  Christianity  here 
and  hereafter? 

Answer.  A  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  has 
done,  in  my  judgment,  great  harm.  The  Bible  has  been  the 
breastwork  for  nearly  everything  wrong.  The  defenders  of 
slavery  relied  on  the  Bible.  The  Bible  was  the  real  auction 
block  on  which  every  negro  stood  when  he  was  sold.  I 
never  knew  a  minister  to  preach  in  favor  of  slavery  that 
did  not  take  his  text  from  the  Bible.  The  Bible  teaches 
persecution  for  opinion's  sake.     The  Bible — that  is  the  Old 


178  INTERVIEWS. 

Testament— Upholds  polygamj^  and  just  to  the  extent  that 
men,  through  the  Bible,  have  believed  that  slavery,  religious 
persecution,  wars  of  extermination  and  polygamy  were 
taught  by  God,  just  to  that  extent  the  Bible  has  done  great 
harm.  The  idea  of  inspiration  enslaves  the  human  mind 
and  debauches  the  human  heart. 

Qicesiion.  Is  not  Christianity  and  the  belief  in  God  a  check 
upon  mankind  in  general  and  thus  a  good  thing  in  itself? 

Answer.  This,  again,  brings  up  the  question  of  what  you 
mean  by  Christianity,  but  taking  it  for  granted  that  you 
mean  by  Christianity  the  church,  then  I  answer,  when  the 
church  had  almost  absolute  authority,  then  the  world  was 
the  worst. 

Now,  as  to  the  other  part  of  the  question,  "  Is  not  a  belief 
in  God  a  check  upon  mankind  in  general  ?  "  That  is  owing 
to  what  kind  of  God  the  man  believes  in.  When  mankind 
believed  in  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  I  think  that  be- 
lief was  a  bad  thing ;  the  tendency  was  bad.  I  think  that 
John  Calvin  patterned  after  Jehovah  as  nearly  as  his  health 
and  strength  would  permit.  Man  makes  God  in  his  own 
image,  and  bad  men  are  not  apt  to  have  a  very  good  God 
if  they  make  him.  I  believe  it  is  far  better  to  have  a  real 
belief  in  goodness,  in  kindness,  in  honesty  and  in  mankind 
than  in  any  supernatural  being  whatever.  I  do  not  suppose 
it  would  do  any  harm  for  a  man  to  believe  in  a  real  good 
God,  a  God  without  revenge,  a  God  that  was  not  very  par- 
ticular in  having  a  man  believe  a  doctrine  whether  he  could 
understand  it  or  not.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  belief  of  that 
kind  would  do  any  particular  harm. 

There  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  God  of  John  Calvin 
and  the  God  of  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  a  great  difference 
between  the  God  of  Cardinal  Pedro  Gonzales  de  Mendoza 
and  the  God  of  Theodore  Parker. 

Question.  Well,  Colonel,  is  the  world  growing  better  or 
worse  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  179 

Answer.  I  think  better  in  some  respects,  and  worse  in 
others;  but  on  the  whole,  better.  I  think  that  while 
events,  like  the  pendulum  of  a  clock,  go  backward  and  for- 
ward, man,  like  the  hands,  goes  forward.  I  think  there  is 
more  reason  and  less  religion,  more  charity  and  less  creed. 
I  think  the  church  is  improving.  Ministers  are  ashamed 
to  preach  the  old  doctrines  with  the  old  fervor.  There  was 
a  time  when  the  pulpit  controlled  the  pews.  It  is  so  no 
longer.  The  pews  know  what  they  want,  and  if  the  minister 
does  not  furnish  it  they  discharge  him  and  employ  another. 
He  is  no  longer  an  autocrat;  he  must  bring  to  the  market 
what  his  customers  are  willing  to  buy. 

Question.  What  are  you  going  to  do  to  be  saved? 

Answer.  Well,  I  think  I  am  safe  anyway.  I  suppose  I 
have  a  right  to  rely  on  what  Matthew  says,  that  if  I  will 
forgive  others  God  will  forgive  me.  I  suppose  if  there  is 
another  world  I  shall  be  treated  very  much  as  I  treat  others. 
I  never  expect  to  find  perfect  bliss  anywhere;  maybe  I 
should  tire  of  it  if  I  should.  What  I  have  endeavored  to 
do  has  been  to  put  out  the  fires  of  an  ignorant  and  cruel 
hell ;  to  do  what  I  could  to  destroy  that  dogma ;  to  destroy 
that  doctrine  that  makes  the  cradle  as  terrible  as  the  coflSn. 

—The  Denver  Republican^  Denver,  Colorado,  January'  17,  1884. 

THE  OATH  QUESTION. 

Question.  I  suppose  that  your  attention  has  been  called 
to  the  excitement  in  England  over  the  oath  question,  and 
you  have  probably  wondered  that  so  much  should  have 
Deen  made  of  so  little? 

Answer.  Yes ;  I  have  read  a  few  articles  upon  the  subject, 
including  one  by  Cardinal  Newman.  It  is  wonderful  that 
so  many  people  imagine  that  there  is  something  miracu- 
lous in  the  oath.  They  seem  to  regard  it  as  a  kind  of 
verbal  fetich — a  charm,  an  ''open  sesame"  to  be  pro- 
nounced  at  the   door   of   truth,   a  spell,  a   kind  of  moral 


l8o  INTERVIEWS. 

thumbscrew,  by  means  of  which  falsehood  itself  is  com. 
pelled  to  turn  informer. 

The  oath  has  outlived  its  brother,  ''the  wager  of  battle." 
Both  were  born  of  the  idea  that  God  would  interfere  for  the 
right  and  for  the  truth.  Trial  b}^  fire  and  by  water  had  the 
same  origin.  It  was  once  believed  that  the  man  in  the 
wrong  could  not  kill  the  man  in  the  right; but,  experience 
having  shown  that  he  usually  did,  the  belief  gradually  fell 
into  disrepute.  So  it  was  once  thought  that  a  perjurer 
could  not  swallow  a  piece  of  sacramental  bread  ;  but,  the  fear 
that  made  the  swallov/ing  difficult  having  passed  away,  the 
appeal  to  the  corsned  was  abolished.  It  was  found  that  a 
brazen  or  a  desperate  man  could  eat  himself  out  of  the 
greatest  difficulty  with  perfect  ease,  satisfying  the  law  and 
his  own  hunger  at  the  same  time. 

The  oath  is  a  relic  of  barbarous  theology,  of  the  belief 
that  a  personal  God  interferes  in  the  affairs  of  men ;  that 
some  God  protects  innocence  and  guards  the  right.  The 
experience  of  the  world  has  sadly  demonstrated  the  folly 
of  that  belief.  The  testimony  of  a  witness  ought  to  be 
believed,  not  because  it  is  given  under  the  solemnities  of  an 
oath,  but  because  it  is  reasonable.  If  unreasonable  it  ought 
to  be  thrown  aside.  The  question  ought  not  to  be,  "  Has 
this  been  sworn  to?"  but,  ''Is  this  true?"  The  moment 
evidence  is  tested  by  the  standard  of  reason,  the  oath 
becomes  a  useless  ceremony.  Let  the  man  who  gives  false 
evidence  be  punished  as  the  lawmaking  power  may  pre- 
scribe. He  should  be  punished  because  he  commits  a  crime 
against  society,  and  he  should  be  punished  in  this  world. 
All  honest  men  will  tell  the  truth  if  they  can ;  therefore, 
oaths  will  have  no  effect  upon  them.  Dishonest  men  will 
not  tell  the  truth  unless  the  truth  happens  to  suit  their  pur- 
pose ;  therefore,  oaths  will  have  no  effect  upon  them.  We 
punish  them,  not  for  swearing  to  a  lie,  but  for  telling  it  ,* 
and  we  can  make  the  punishment  for  telling  the  falsehood 


INTERVIEWS.  l8l 

just  as  severe  as  we  wish.  If  they  are  to  be  punished  in 
another  world,  the  probability  is  that  the  punishment  there 
will  be  for  having  told  the  falsehood  hereo  After  all,  a 
lie  is  made  no  worse  by  an  oath,  and  the  truth  is  made  no 
better. 

Question.  You  object  then  to  the  oath.  Is  your  objection 
based  on  any  religious  grounds,  or  on  any  prejudice 
against  the  ceremony  because  of  its  religious  origin ;  or 
what  is  your  objection? 

Answer.  I  care  nothing  about  the  origin  of  the  ceremony. 
The  objection  to  the  oath  is  this:  It  furnishes  a  falsehood 
with  a  letter  of  credit.  It  supplies  the  wolf  with  sheep's 
clothing  and  covers  the  hands  of  Jacob  with  hair.  It  blows 
out  the  light,  and  in  the  darkness  Leah  is  taken  for 
Rachel.  It  puts  upon  each  witness  a  kind  of  theological 
gown.  This  gown  hides  the  moral  rags  of  the  depraved 
wretch  as  well  as  the  virtues  of  the  honest  man.  The  oath 
is  a  mask  that  falsehood  puts  on,  and  for  a  moment  is 
mistaken  for  truth.  It  gives  to  dishonesty  the  advantage 
of  solemnity.  The  tendency  of  the  oath  is  to  put  all  tes- 
timony on  an  equality.  The  obscure  rascal  and  the  man 
of  sterling  character  both  "  swear,"  and  jurors  who  attri- 
bute a  miraculous  quality  to  the  oath,  forget  the  real 
difference  in  the  men,  and  give  about  the  same  weight  to 
the  evidence  of  each,  because  both  were  "  sworn."  A 
scoundrel  is  delighted  with  the  opportunity  of  going 
through  a  ceremony  that  gives  importance  and  dignity  to 
his  story,  that  clothes  him  for  the  moment  with  respecta- 
bility, loans  him  the  appearance  of  conscience,  and  gives 
the  ring  of  true  coin  to  the  base  metal.  To  him  the  oath 
is  a  shield.  He  is  in  partnership,  for  a  moment,  wath  God, 
and  people  who  have  no  confidence  in  the  witness  credit 
the  firm. 

Question.  Of  course  you  know  the  religionists  insist  that 
people  are  more  likely  to  tell  the  truth  when  "sworn,"  and 


1 82  INTERVIEWS. 

that  to  take  away  tlie  oath  is  to  destroy  the  foundation  ot 
testimony  ? 

Aiiswer.  If  the  use  of  the  oath  is  defended  on  the  ground 
that  religious  people  need  a  stimulus  to  tell  the  truth, 
then  I  am  compelled  to  say  that  religious  people  have  been 
so  badly  educated  that  they  mistake  the  nature  of  the 
crime. 

They  should  be  taught  that  to  defeat  justice  by 
falsehood  is  the  real  offence.  Besides,  fear  is  not  the 
natural  foundation  of  virtue.  Even  with  religious  people 
fear  cannot  always  last.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  have  been 
dead  so  long,  and  since  their  time  so  many  people  have 
sworn  falsely  without  affecting  their  health  that  the  fear  of 
sudden  divine  vengeance  no  longer  pales  the  cheek  of  the 
perjurer.  If  the  vengeance  is  not  sudden,  then,  according 
to  the  church,  the  criminal  will  have  plenty  of  time  to 
repent ;  so  that  the  oath  no  longer  affects  even  the  fearful. 
Would  it  not  be  better  for  the  church  to  teach  that  telling 
the  falsehood  is  the  real  crime,  and  that  taking  the  oath 
neither  adds  to  nor  takes  from  its  enormity  ?  Would  it  not 
be  better  to  teach  that  he  who  does  wrong  must  suffer  the 
consequences,  whether  God  forgives  him  or  not  ? 

He  who  tries  to  injure  another  may  or  may  not  succeed, 
but  he  cannot  by  any  possibility  fail  to  injure  himself. 
Men  should  be  taught  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
truth-telling  and  truth-swearing.  Nothing  is  more  vicious 
than  the  idea  that  any  ceremony  or  form  of  words — hand- 
lifting  or  book-kissing — can  add,  even  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree, to  the  perpetual  obligation  every  human  being  is 
under  to  speak  the  truth. 

The  truth,  plainly  told,  naturally  commends  itself  to  the 
intelligent.  Every  fact  is  a  genuine  link  in  the  infinite 
chain,  and  will  agree  perfectly  with  every  other  fact.  A 
fact  asks  to  be  inspected,  asks  to  be  understood.  It  needs 
no  oath,  no  ceremony,  no  supernatural  aid.     It  is  independ- 


INTERVIEWS.  183 

ent  of  all  the  gods.  A  falsehood  goes  in  partnership  with 
theology,  and  depends  on  the  partner  for  success. 

To  show  how  little  influence  for  good  has  been  attributed 
to  the  oath,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  for  centuries,  in 
the  Christian  world,  no  person  was  allowed  to  testify  who 
had  the  slightest  pecuniary  interest  in  the  result  of  a  suit. 

The  expectation  of  a  farthing  in  this  world  was  supposed 
to  outweigh  the  fear  of  God's  wrath  in  the  next.  All  the 
pangs,  pains,  and  penalties  of  perdition  were  considered  as 
nothing  when  compared  with  the  pounds,  shillings  and 
pence  in  this  world. 

Question.  You  know  that  in  nearly  all  deliberative  bodies 
— in  parliaments  and  congresses — an  oath  or  an  affirmation 
is  required  to  support  what  is  called  the  Constitution;  and 
that  all  officers  are  required  to  swear  or  affirm  that  the}^ 
will  discharge  their  duties;  do  these  oaths  and  affirmations, 
in  your  judgment,  do  any  good? 

Answer.  Men  have  sought  to  make  nations  and  institu- 
tions immortal  by  oaths,  Subjects  have  sworn  to  obey 
kings,  and  kings  have  sworn  to  protect  subjects,  and  yet  the 
subjects  have  sometimes  beheaded  a  king ;  and  the  king  has 
often  plundered  the  subjects.  The  oaths  enabled  them  to 
deceive  each  other.  Every  absurdity  in  religion,  and  all 
tyrannical  institutions,  have  been  patched,  buttressed,  and 
reinforced  by  oaths ;  and  yet  the  history  of  the  world  shows 
the  utter  futility  of  putting  in  the  coffin  of  an  oath  the 
political  and  religious  aspirations  of  the  race. 

Revolutions  and  reformations  care  little  for  "  So  help  me 
God."  Oaths  have  riveted  shackles  and  sanctified  abuses. 
People  swear  to  support  a  constitution,  and  they  will  keep 
the  oath  so  long  as  the  constitution  supports  them.  In  1776 
the  colonists  cared  nothing  for  the  fact  that  they  had  sworn 
to  support  the  British  crown.  All  the  oaths  to  defend  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  did  not  prevent  the  Civil 
war.     We  have  at  last  learned   that   States  may  be  kept 


t84  interviews. 

together  for  a  little  time,  by  force ;  permanently  onl3''  by 
mutual  interests.  We  have  found  that  the  Delilah  of  super- 
stition cannot  bind  with  oaths  the  secular  Samson. 

Why  should  a  member  of  Parliament  or  of  Congress 
swear  to  maintain  the  Constitution  ?  If  he  is  a  dishonest 
man,  the  oath  will  have  no  effect;  if  he  is  an  honest 
patriot,  it  will  have  no  effect.  In  both  cases  it  is  equally 
useless.  If  a  member  fails  to  support  the  Constitution  the 
probability  is  that  his  constituents  will  treat  him  as  he  does 
the  Constitution.  In  this  country,  after  all  the  members  of 
Congress  have  sworn  or  affirmed  to  defend  the  Constitution, 
each  political  party  charges  the  other  with  a  deliberate  en- 
deavor to  destroy  that  "  sacred  instrument."  Possibly  the 
political  oath  was  invented  to  prevent  the  free  and  natural 
development  of  a  nation.  Kings  and  nobles  and  priests 
wished  to  retain  the  property  they  had  filched  and  clutched, 
and  for  that  purpose  they  compelled  the  real  owners  to 
swear  that  they  would  support  and  defend  the  law  under 
color  of  which  the  theft  and  robbery  had  been  accomplished. 

So,  in  the  church,  creeds  have  been  protected  by  oaths. 
Priests  and  laymen  solemnly  swore  that  they  would,  under 
no  circumstances,  resort  to  reason  ;  that  they  would  over- 
come facts  by  faith,  and  strike  down  demonstrations  with 
the  "  sword  of  the  spirit."  Professors  of  the  theological 
seminary  at  Andover,  Massachusetts,  swear  to  defend  cer- 
tain dogmas  and  to  attack  others.  They  swear  sacredly  to 
keep  and  guard  the  ignorance  they  have.  With  them,  phi- 
losophy leads  to  perjurj'',  and  reason  is  the  road  to  crime. 
While  theological  professors  are  not  likely  to  make  an  in- 
tellectual discovery,  still  it  is  unwise,  by  taking  an  oath,  to 
render  that  certain  which  was  only  improbable. 

If  all  witnesses  sworn  to  tell  the  truth,  did  so,  if  all 
members  of  Parliament  and  of  Congress,  in  taking  the  oath, 
became  intelligent,  patriotic,  and  honest,  I  should  be  in 
favor  of  retaining  the  ceremony ;  but  we  find  that  men  who 


INTERVIEWS.  185 

have  taken  the  same  oath  advocate  opposite  ideas,  and  en- 
tertain different  opinions,  as  to  the  meaning  of  constitu- 
tions and  laws.  The  oath  adds  nothing  to  their  intelli- 
gence ;  does  not  even  tend  to  increase  their  patriotism, 
and  certainly  does  not  make  the  dishonest  honest. 

Question.  Are  not  persons  allowed  to  testify  in  the  United 
States  whether  they  believe  in  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments or  not  ? 

Answer.  In  this  country,  in  most  of  the  States,  witnesses 
are  allowed  to  testify  whether  they  believe  in  perdition  and 
paradise  or  not.  In  some  States  they  are  allowed  to  testif}^ 
even  if  they  deny  the  existence  of  God .  We  have  found 
that  religious  belief  does  not  compel  people  to  tell  the 
truth,  and  that  an  utter  denial  of  every  Christian  creed 
does  not  even  tend  to  make  them  dishonest.  You  see,  a 
religious  belief  does  not  affect  the  sen.ses.  Justice  should 
not  shut  any  door  that  leads  to  truth.  No  one  will  pretend 
that,  because  3^ou  do  not  not  believe  in  hell,  your  sight  is 
impaired,  or  your  hearing  dulled,  or  your  memory  rendered 
less  retentive.  A  witness  in  a  court  is  called  upon  to  tell 
what  he  has  seen,  what  he  has  heard,  what  he  remembers, 
not  what  he  believes  about  gods  and  devils  and  hells  and 
heavens.  A  witness  substantiates  not  a  faith,  but  a  fact. 
In  order  to  ascertain  whether  a  witness  will  tell  the  truth, 
you  might  with  equal  propriety  examine  him  as  to  his 
ideas  about  music,  painting  or  architecture,  as  theology.  A 
man  may  have  no  ear  for  music,  and  yet  remember  what 
he  hears.  He  may  care  nothing  about  painting,  and  yet  be 
able  to  tell  what  he  sees.  So  he  may  deny  every  creed,  and 
yet  be  able  to  tell  the  facts  as  he  remembers  them, 

Thomas  Jefferson  was  wise  enough  so  to  frame  the  Con- 
stitution of  Virginia  that  no  person  could  be  deprived  of 
any  civil  right  on  account  of  his  religious  or  irreligious  be- 
lief. Through  the  influence  of  men  like  Paine,  Franklin 
and  Jefferson,  it  was  provided  in  the  Federal  Constitution 


1 86  INTERVIEWS. 

that  officers  elected  under  its  authority  could  swear  or  af- 
firm. This  was  the  natural  result  of  the  separation  of 
church  and  state. 

Question.  I  see  that  your  Presidents  and  Governors  issue 
their  proclamations  calling  on  the  people  to  assemble  in 
their  churches  and  ofEer  thanks  to  God.  How  does  this 
happen  in  a  Government  where  church  and  state  are  not 
united? 

Answer.  Jefferson,  when  President,  refused  to  issue  what 
is  known  as  the  "Thanksgiving  Proclamation,"  on  the 
ground  that  the  Federal  Government  had  no  right  to  inter- 
fere in  religious  matters ;  that  the  people  owed  no  religious 
duties  to  the  Government ;  that  the  Government  derived  its 
powers,  not  from  priests  or  gods,  but  from  the  people,  and 
was  responsible  alone  to  the  source  of  its  power.  The  truth 
is,  the  framers  of  our  Constitution  intended  that  the 
Government  should  be  secular  in  the  broadest  and  best 
sense ;  and  yet  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of  re- 
ligious people  in  this  country  who  are  greatly  scandalized 
because  there  is  no  recognition  of  God  in  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution ;  and  for  several  years  a  great  many  ministers 
have  been  endeavoring  to  have  the  Constitution  amended 
so  as  to  recognize  the  existence  of  God  and  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  A  man  by  the  name  of  Pollock  was  once  superin- 
tendent of  the  mint  at  Philadelphia.  He  was  almost  insane 
about  having  God  in  the  Constitution.  Failing  in  that,  he 
got  the  inscription  on  our  money,  "  In  God  we  Trust."  As 
our  silver  dollar  is  now,  in  fact,  worth  only  eighty-five 
cents,  it  is  claimed  that  the  inscription  means  that  we 
trust  in  God  for  the  other  fifteen  cents. 

There  is  a  constant  effort  on  the  part  of  many  Christians 
to  have  their  religion  in  some  way  recognized  by  law. 
Proclamations  are  now  issued  calling  upon  the  people  to 
give  thanks,  and  directing  attention  to  the  fact  that,  while 
God  bas  scoiirged  or  neglected  other  nations,  he  has  been 


INTERVIEWS.  187 

remarkably  attentive  to  the  wants  and  wishes  of  the  United 
States.  Governors  of  States  issue  these  documents  written 
in  a  tone  of  pious  insincerity.  The  year  may  or  may  not 
have  been  prosperous,  yet  the  degree  of  thankfulness  called 
for  is  always  precisely  the  same. 

A  few  years  ago  the  Governor  of  Iowa  issued  an  exceed- 
ingly rhetorical  proclamation,  in  which  the  people  were 
requested  to  thank  God  for  the  unparalleled  blessings  he  had 
showered  upon  them.  A  private  citizen,  fearing  that  the 
Lord  might  be  misled  by  ofi&cial  correspondence,  issued  his 
proclamation,  in  which  he  recounted  with  great  particu- 
larit}^  the  hardships  of  the  preceding  year.  He  insisted 
that  the  weather  had  been  of  the  poorest  quality  ;  that  the 
crops  had  generally  failed ;  that  the  spring  came  late,  and 
the  frost  early  ;  that  the  people  were  in  debt ;  that  the  farms 
were  mortgaged ;  that  the  merchants  were  bankrupt ;  and 
that  everything  was  in  the  worst  possible  condition.  He 
concluded  by  sincerely  hoping  that  the  Lord  would  pay  no 
attention  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Governor,  but  would, 
if  he  had  any  doubt  on  the  subject,  come  down  and  exam- 
ine the  State  for  himself. 

These  proclamations  have  always  appeared  to  me  ab- 
surdly egotistical.  Why  should  God  treat  us  any  better 
than  he  does  the  rest  of  his  children  ?  Why  should  he  send 
pestilence  and  famine  to  China,  and  health  and  plenty  to 
us?  Why  give  us  corn,  and  Egypt  cholera?  All  these 
proclamations  grow  out  of  egotism  and  selfishness,  of  ig- 
norance and  superstition,  and  are  based  upon  the  idea  that 
God  is  a  capricious  monster ;  that  he  loves  flattery ;  that 
he  can  be  coaxed  and  cajoled. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  with  me  is  this  :  For 
truth  in  courts  we  must  depend  upon  the  trained  intelli- 
gence of  judges,  the  right  of  cross-examination,  the  hon- 
esty and  common  sense  of  jurors,  and  upon  an  enlight- 
ened public  opinion.   As  for  members  of  Congress,  we  will 


1 88  INTERVIEWS. 

trust  to  the  wisdom  and  patriotism,  not  onlj^  of  the  members, 
but  of  their  constituents.  In  religion  we  will  give  to  all 
the  luxury-  of  absolute  liberty. 

The  alchemist  did  not  succeed  in  finding  anj^  stone  the 
touch  of  which  transmuted  baser  things  to  gold ;  and  priests 
have  not  invented  yet  an  oath  with  power  to  force  from 
falsehood's  desperate  lips  the  pearl  of  truth. — Secular  Review, 

London,  England,  1884. 

WENDELL  PHILLIPS,  FITZ  JOHN  PORTER 
AND  BISMARCK. 

QuesHoyi.  Are  you  seeking  to  quit  public  lecturing  on 
religious  questions  ? 

Answer.  As  long  as  I  live  I  expect  now  and  then  to  say 
my  say  against  the  religious  bigotry  and  cruelty  of  the 
w^orld.  As  long  as  the  smallest  coal  is  red  in  hell  I  am 
going  to  keep  on.  I  never  had  the  slightest  idea  of  retir- 
ing.    I  expect  the  church  to  do  the  retinng. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Wendell  Phillips  as  an 
orator  ? 

A?iswer.  He  was  a  vory  great  orator — one  of  the  greatest 
that  the  world  has  produced.  He  rendered  immense  service 
\o  the  cause  of  freedom.  He  was  in  the  old  days  the 
thunderbolt  that  pierced  the  shield  of  the  Constitution. 
One  of  the  bravest  soldiers  that  ever  fought  for  human 
rights  was  Wendell  Phillips. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  action  of  Congress  on 
Fitz  John  Porter? 

Answer.  I  think  Congress  did  right.  I  think  they  should 
iiave  taken  this  action  long  before.  There  was  a  question 
of  his  guilt,  and  he  should  have  been  given  the  benefit  of  a 
doubt.  They  say  he  could  have  defeated  Longstreet. 
There  are  some  people,  you  know,  who  would  have  it  that 
an  army  could  be  whipped  by  a  good  general  with  six 
mules  and   a  blunderbuss.     But  we  do  not  regard  those 


INTERVIEWS.  189 

people.  They  know  no  more  about  it  than  a  lady  who 
talked  to  me  about  Porter's  case.  She  argued  the  question 
of  Porter's  guilt  for  half  an  hour.  I  showed  her  where  she 
was  all  wrong.  When  she  found  she  was  beaten  she  took 
refuge  with  ''Oh,  well,  anyhow  he  had  no  genius."  Well, 
if  every  man  is  to  be  shot  who  has  no  genius,  I  want  to  go 
into  the  coffin  business. 

Question,  What,  in  your  judgment,  is  necessary  to  be  done 
to  insure  Republican  success  this  fall? 

Answer.  It  is  only  necessary  for  the  Republican  party  to 
stand  by  its  principles.  We  must  be  in  favor  of  protecting 
American  labor  not  only,  but  of  protecting  American 
capital,  and  we  must  be  in  favor  of  civil  rights,  and  must 
advocate  the  doctrine  that  the  Federal  Government  must 
protect  all  citizens.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  tariff,  not  simply  to 
raise  a  revenue — that  I  regard  as  incidental.  The  Demo- 
crats regard  protection  as  incidental.  The  two  principles 
should  be,  protection  to  American  industry  and  protection 
to  American  citizens.  So  that,  after  all,  there  is  but  one 
issue — protection.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  that  is  all  a  gov- 
ernment is  for — to  protect.  The  Republican  party  is 
stronger  to-day  than  it  was  four  years  ago.  The  Republi- 
can party  stands  for  the  progressive  ideas  of  the  American 
people.  It  has  been  said  that  the  administration  will  control 
the  Southern  delegates.  I  do  not  believe  it.  This  admin- 
istration has  not  been  friendly  to  the  Southern  Republicans, 
and  my  opinion  is  there  will  be  as  much  division  in  the 
Southern  as  in  the  Northern  States.  I  believe  Blaine  will 
be  a  candidate,  and  I  do  not  believe  the  Prohibitionists  will 
put  a  ticket  in  the  field,  because  they  have  no  hope  of 
success. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  generally  of  the  revival  of 
the  bloody  shirt  ?  Do  you  think  the  investigations  of  the 
Republicans  of  the  Danville  and  Copiah  massacres  will 
benefit  them  ? 


IQO  INTERVIEWS. 

A7iswer.  Well,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  revival  of  that  question 
just  as  often  as  a  citizen  of  the  Republic  is  murdered  on 
account  of  his  politics.  If  the  South  is  sick  of  that  question, 
let  it  stop  persecuting  men  because  they  are  Republicans. 
I  do  not  believe,  however,  in  simply  investigating  the  ques- 
tion and  then  stopping  after  the  guilty  ones  are  found.  I 
believe  in  indicting  them,  trying  them,  and  convicting  them. 
If  the  Government  can  do  nothing  except  investigate,  we 
might  as  well  stop,  and  admit  that  we  have  no  government. 
Thousands  of  people  think  that  it  is  almost  vulgar  to  take 
the  part  of  the  poor  colored  people  in  the  South.  Whose 
part  should  you  take  if  not  that  of  the  weak?  The  strong 
do  not  need  you.  And  I  can  tell  the  Southern  people  now, 
that  as  long  as  they  persecute  for  opinion's  sake  they  will 
never  touch  the  reins  of  political  power  in  this  country. 

Question.  How  do  you  regard  the  action  of  Bismarck  in 
returning  the  Lasker  resolutions.  Was  it  the  result  of  his 
hatred  of  the  Jews? 

Answer.  Bismarck  opposed  a  bill  to  do  away  with  the 
disabilities  of  the  Jews  on  the  ground  that  Prussia  is  a 
Christian  nation,  founded  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  presume  that  it  was  his  hatred  of 
the  Jews  that  caused  him  to  return  the  resolutions.  Bis- 
marck should  have  lived  several  centuries  ago.  He  belongs 
to  the  Dark  Ages.  He  is  a  believer  in  the  sword  and  the 
bayonet — in  brute  force.  He  was  loved  by  Germany  simply 
because  he  humiliated  France.  Germany  gave  her  liberty 
for  revenge.  It  is  only  necessary  to  compare  Bismarck 
with  Gambetta  to  see  what  a  failure  he  really  is.  Germany 
w^as  victorious  and  took  from  France  the  earnings  of 
centuries ;  and  yet  Germany  is  to-day  the  least  prosperous 
nation  in  Europe.  France  was  prostrate,  trampled  into  the 
earth,  robbed,  and  yet,  guided  by  Gambetta,  is  to-day  the 
most  prosperous  nation  in  Europe.  This  shows  the  differ- 
ence between  brute  force  and  brain. — The  Times,  CMcago,  nunois, 
February  21, 1884. 


GENERAL  SUBJECTS. 

Question.  Do  you  enjoy  lecturing? 

Answer.  Of  course  I  enjoy  lecturing.  It  is  a  great 
pleasure  to  drive  the  fiend  of  fear  out  of  the  hearts  of  men 
women  and  children.  It  is  a  positive  joy  to  put  out  the  fires 
of  hell. 

Question.  Where  do  you  meet  with  the  bitterest  opposi- 
tion? 

Answer.  I  meet  with  the  bitterest  opposition  where  the 
people  are  the  most  ignorant,  where  there  is  the  least 
thought,  where  there  are  the  fewest  books.  The  old  theology 
is  becoming  laughable.  Very  few  ministers  have  the 
impudence  to  preach  in  the  old  way.  They  give  new 
meanings  to  old  words.  They  subscribe  to  the  same  creed, 
but  preach  exactly  the  other  way.  The  clergy  are  ashamed 
to  admit  that  they  are  orthodox,  and  they  ought  to  be. 

Question.  Do  liberal  books,  such  as  the  works  of  Paine 
and  Infidel  scientists  sell  well  ? 

Ayiswer.  Yes,  they  are  about  the  only  books  on  serious 
subjects  that  do  sell  well.  The  works  of  Darwin,  Buckle, 
Draper,  Haeckel,  Tyndall,  Humboldt  and  hundreds  of  others, 
are  read  by  intelligent  people  the  world  over.  Works  of  a 
religious  character  die  on  the  shelves.  The  people  want 
facts.  They  want  to  know  about  this  world,  about  all  forms 
of  life.  They  want  the  mysteries  of  ever}^  day  solved. 
They  want  honest  thoughts  about  sensible  questions.  They 
are  tired  of  the  follies  of  faith  and  the  falsehoods  of  super- 
stition. They  want  a  heaven  here.  In  a  few  years  the  old 
theological  books  will  be  sold  to  make  paper  on  which  to 
print  the  discoveries  of  science. 

Question.  In  what  section  of  the  country  do  you  find  the 
most  liberality  ? 

Answer,  I  find  great  freedom  of  thought  in  Boston,  New 

(191) 


192  INTERVIEWS. 

York,  Chicago,  San  Francisco,  in  fact,  all  over  what  we  call 
the  North.  The  West  of  course  is  liberal.  The  truth  is, 
that  all  the  intelligent  part  of  the  country  is  liberal.  The 
railroad,  the  telegraph,  the  daily  paper,  electric  light,  the 
telephone,  and  freedom  of  thought  belong  together. 

Question.  Is  is  true  that  you  were  once  threatened  with  a 
criminal  prosecution  for  libel  on  religion  ? 

A7iswer.  Yes,  in  Delaware.  Chief  Justice  Comegys  in- 
structed the  grand  jury  to  indict  me  for  blasphemy.  I  have 
taken  my  revenge  on  the  State  by  leaving  it  in  ignorance. 
Delaware  is  several  centuries  behind  the  times.  It  is  as 
bigoted  as  it  is  small.  Compare  Kansas  City  with  Wilming- 
ton and  you  will  see  the  difference  between  liberalism  and 
orthodoxy. 

Question.  This  is  Washington's  birthday.  What  do  you 
think  of  General  Washington  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  Washington  was  what  was  called 
religious.  He  was  not  very  strict  in  his  conduct.  He  tried 
to  have  church  and  state  united  in  Virginia  and  was 
defeated  by  Jefferson.  It  should  make  no  difference  with 
us  whether  Washington  was  religious  or  not.  Jefferson  was 
by  far  the  greater  man.  In  intellect  there  was  no  compar- 
ison between  Washington  and  Franklin.  I  do  not  prove 
the  correctness  of  my  ideas  by  names  of  dead  people.  I 
depend  upon  reason  instead  of  gravestones.  One  fact  is 
worth  a  cemetery  full  of  distinguished  corpses.  We  ask 
not  for  the  belief  of  somebody,  but  for  evidence,  for  facts. 
The  church  is  a  beggar  at  the  door  of  respectability.  The 
moment  a  man  becomes  famous,  the  church  asks  him  for  a 
certificate  that  the  Bible  is  true.  It  passes  its  hat  before 
generals  and  presidents,  and  kings  while  they  are  alive. 
It  sa3'S  nothing  about  thinkers  and  real  philosophers  while 
they  live,  except  to  slander  them,  but  the  moment  they  are 
dead  it  seeks  among  their  words  for  a  crumb  of  comfort. 

Qtiestio?i.  Will  Liberalism  ever  organize  in  America? 


INTERVIEWS.  193 

Answer.  I  hope  not.  Organization  means  creed,  and 
creed  means  petrifaction  and  tyranny.  I  believe  in  individ- 
uality. I  will  not  join  any  society  except  an  anti-society 
society. 

Question.  Do  j^ou  consider  the  religion  of  Bhagavat 
Purana  of  the  East  as  good  as  the  Christian  ? 

Answer.  It  is  far  more  poetic.  It  has  greater  variety  and 
shows  vastly  more  thought.  Like  the  Hebrew,  it  is 
poisoned  with  superstition,  but  it  has  more  beauty. 
Nothing  can  be  more  barren  than  the  theology  of  the  Jews 
and  Christians.  One  lonely  God,  a  heaven  filled  with 
thoughtless  angels,  a  hell  with  unfortunate  souls.  Nothing 
can  be  more  desolate.  The  Greek  mythology  is  infinitely 
better. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  marriage  institution  is 
held  in  less  respect  by  Infidels  than  by  Christians  ? 

A7iswer.  No;  there  never  was  a  time  when  marriage 
was  more  believed  in  than  now.  Never  were  wives  treated 
better  and  loved  more;  never  were  children  happier  than 
now.  It  is  the  ambition  of  the  average  American  to  have 
a  good  and  happy  home.  The  fireside  was  never  more 
popular  than  now. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Beecher  ? 

Answer.  He  is  a  great  man,  but  the  habit  of  his  mind 
and  the  bent  of  his  early  education  oppose  his  heart.  He  is 
growing  and  has  been  growing  every  day  for  many  years. 
He  has  given  up  the  idea  of  eternal  punishment,  and  that 
of  necessity  destroys  it  all.  The  Christian  religion  is 
founded  upon  hell.  When  the  foundation  crumbles  the 
fabric  falls.  Beecher  was  to  have  answered  my  article  in 
the  North  American  Review,  but  when  it  appeared  and  he 
saw  it,  he  agreed  with  so  much  of  it  that  he  concluded  that 

an  answer  would  be  useless. — The  Times,  Kansas  City,  Missouri,  Feb- 
ruary 23,  1884. 


REPLY  TO  KANSAS  CITY  CLERGY. 

Question.  Will  you  take  any  notice  of  Mr.  Magrath's 
challenge  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  discuss  with 
Mr.  Magrath.  I  do  not  say  this  in  disparagement  of  his 
ability,  as  I  do  not  know  the  gentleman.  He  may  be  one 
of  the  greatest  of  men.  I  think,  however,  that  Mr.  Magrath 
might  better  answer  what  I  have  already  said.  If  he  suc- 
ceeds in  that,  then  I  will  meet  him  in  public  discussion. 
Of  course  he  is  an  eminent  theologian  or  he  would  not 
think  of  discussing  these  questions  with  anybody.  I  have 
never  heard  of  him,  but  for  all  that  he  may  be  the  most 
intelligent  of  men. 

Questio7i.  How  have  the  recently  expressed  opinions  of 
our  local  clergy  impressed  you  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  you  refer  to  the  preachers  who  have 
given  their  opinion  of  me.  In  the  first  place  I  am  obliged 
to  them  for  acting  as  my  agents.  I  think  Mr.  Hogan  has 
been  imposed  upon.  Tacitus  is  a  poor  witness — about  like 
Josephus.  I  say  again  that  we  have  not  a  word  about 
Christ  written  by  any  human  being  who  lived  in  the  time 
of  Christ — not  a  solitary  word,  and  Mr.  Hogan  ought  to 
know  it. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Mathews  is  mistaken.  If  the  Bible  proves 
anything,  it  proves  that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days 
and  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  built  on  Saturday.  The  Bible 
gives  the  age  of  Adam  when  he  died,  and  then  gives  the 
ages  of  others  down  to  the  flood,  and  then  from  that  time 
at  least  to  the  return  from  the  captivity.  If  the  genealogy 
of  the  Bible  is  true  it  is  about  six  thousand  years  since 
Adam  was  made,  and  the  world  is  only  five  days  older  than 

(194) 


INTERVIEWS.  195 

Adam.  It  is  nonsense  to  say  the  days  were  long  periods  of 
time.  If  that  is  so,  away  goes  the  idea  of  Sunday.  The 
only  reason  for  keeping  Sunday  given  in  the  Bible  is  that 
God  made  the  world  in  six  days  and  rested  on  the  seventh. 
Mr.  Mathews  is  not  candid.  He  knows  that  he  cannot  answer 
the  arguments  I  have  urged  against  the  Bible.  He  knows 
that  the  ancient  Jews  were  barbarians,  and  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  a  barbarous  book.  He  knows  that  it  upholds 
slavery  and  polygamy,  and  he  probably  feels  ashamed  of 
what  he  is  compelled  to  preach. 

Mr.  Jardine  takes  a  very  cheerful  view  of  the  subject. 
He  expects  the  light  to  dawn  on  the  unbelievers.  He  speaks 
as  though  he  were  the  superior  of  all  Infidels.  He  claims 
to  be  a  student  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity.  There  are 
no  evidences,  consequently  Mr.  Jardine  is  a  student  of 
nothing.  It  is  amazing  how  dignified  some  people  can  get 
on  a  small  capital. 

Mr.  Haley  has  sense  enough  to  tell  the  ministers  not  to 
attempt  to  answer  me.  That  is  good  advice.  The  ministers 
had  better  keep  still.  It  is  the  safer  way.  If  the}^  try  to 
answer  what  I  say,  the  "  sheep "  will  see  how  foolish  the 
*'  shepherds  "  are.  The  best  way  is  for  them  to  say, "  that 
has  been  answered." 

Mr.  Wells  agrees  with  Mr.  Haley.  He,  too,  thinks  that 
silence  is  the  best  weapon.  I  agree  with  him.  Let  the 
clergy  keep  still ;  that  is  the  best  way.  It  is  better  to  say 
nothing  than  to  talk  absurdity.  I  am  delighted  to  think 
that  at  last  the  ministers  have  concluded  that  they  had 
better  not  answer  Infidels. 

Mr.  Woods  is  fearful  only  for  the  young.  He  is  afraid 
that  I  will  hurt  the  children.  He  thinks  that  the  mother 
ought  to  stoop  over  the  cradle  and  in  the  ears  of  the  babe 
shout.  Hell !  So  he  thinks  in  all  probability  that  the  same 
word  ought  to  be  repeated  at  the  grave  as  a  consolation  to 
mourners. 


196  INTERVIEWS. 

I  am  glad  that  Mr.  Mann  thinks  that  I  am  doing  neither 
good  nor  harm.  This  gives  me  great  hope.  If  I  do  no 
harm,  certainly  I  ought  not  to  be  eternally  damned.  It  is 
very  consoling  to  have  an  orthodox  minister  solemnly  as- 
sert that  I  am  doing  no  harm.  I  wish  I  could  say  as  much 
for  him. 

The  truth  is,  all  these  ministers  have  kept  back  their  real 
thoughts.  They  do  not  tell  their  doubts — they  know  that 
orthodoxy  is  doomed — they  know  that  the  old  doctrine  ex- 
cites laughter  and  scorn.  They  know  that  the  fires  of  hell 
are  dying  out;  that  the  Bible  is  ceasing  to  be  an  authority; 
and  that  the  pulpit  is  growing  feebler  and  feebler  every 
day.     Poor  parsons  ! 

Question.  Would  the  Catholicism  of  General  Sherman's 
family  affect  his  chances  for  the  presidency  ? 

Answer,  I  do  not  think  the  religion  of  the  family  should 
have  any  weight  one  way  or  the  other.  It  would  make  no 
difference  with  me ;  although  I  hate  Catholicism  with  all  my 
heart,  I  do  not  hate  Catholics.  Some  people  might  be  so 
prejudiced  that  they  would  not  vote  for  a  man  whose  wife 
belongs  to  the  Catholic  Church  ;  but  such  people  are  too 
narrow  to  be  consulted.  General  Sherman  says  that  he 
wants  no  office.  In  that  he  shows  his  good  sense.  He  is  a 
great  man  and  a  great  soldier.  He  has  won  laurels  enough 
for  one  brow.  He  has  the  respect  and  admiration  of  the 
nation,  and  does  not  need  the  presidency  to  finish  his 
career.  He  wishes  to  enjoy  the  honors  he  has  won  and  the 
rest  he  deserves. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Matthew  Arnold  ? 

Answer,  He  is  a  man  of  talent,  well  educated,  a  little 
fussy,  somewhat  sentimental,  but  he  is  not  a  genius.  He  is 
not  creative.     He  is  a  critic — not  an  originator.      He  wiH 

not  compare  with  Emerson. — rA^/i^wrwa/,  Kansas  city,  Missouri,  Feb- 
ruaxysa  1S84. 


SWEARING  AND  AFFIRMING. 

Question.  What  is  the  difference  in  the  parliamentary 
oath  of  this  country  which  saves  us  from  such  a  squabble 
as  they  have  had  in  England  over  the  Bradlaugh  case  ? 

Answer,  Our  Constitution  provides  that  a  member  of 
Congress  may  swear  or  affirm.  The  consequence  is  that 
we  can  have  no  such  controversy  as  they  have  had  in  En- 
gland. The  framers  of  our  Constitution  wished  forever  to 
divorce  church  and  state.  They  knew  that  it  made  no 
possible  difference  whether  a  man  swore  or  affirmed,  or 
whether  he  swore  and  affirmed  to  support  the  Constitution. 
All  the  Federal  officers  who  went  into  the  Rebellion  had 
sworn  or  affirmed  to  support  the  Constitution.  All  that 
did  no  good.  The  entire  oath  business  is  a  mistake.  I 
think  it  would  be  a  thousand  times  better  to  abolish  all 
oaths  in  courts  of  justice.  The  oath  allows  a  rascal  to  put 
on  the  garments  of  solemnity,  the  mask  of  piety,  while  he 
tells  a  lie.  In  other  words,  the  oath  allows  the  villain  to 
give  falsehood  the  appearance  of  truth.  I  think  it  would 
be  far  better  to  let  each  witness  tell  his  story  and  leave  his 
evidence  to  the  intelligence  of  the  jury  and  judge.  The 
trouble  about  the  oath  is  that  its  tendency  is  to  put  all  wit- 
nesses on  an  equality  ;  the  jury  says,  "  Why,  he  swore  to 
it."  Now,  if  the  oath  were  abolished,  the  jury  would  judge 
all  testimony  according  to  the  witness,  and  then  the  evi- 
dence of  one  man  of  good  reputation  would  outweigh  the  lies 
of  thousands  of  nobodies. 

It  was  at  one  time  believed  that  there  was  something 
miraculous  in  the  oath,  that  it  was  a  kind  of  thumbscrew 
that  would  torture  the  truth  out  of  a  rascal,  and  at  one 
time  they  believed  that  if  a  man  swore  falsely  he  might  be 
struck  by  lightning  or  paralyzed.     But  so  many  people 

*      (197) 


198  INTERVIEWS. 

have  sworn  to  lies  without  having  their  health  injured  that 
the  old  superstition  has  very  little  weight  with  the  average 
witness.  I  think  it  would  be  far  better  to  let  every  man 
tell  his  stor}^ ;  let  him  be  cross-examined,  let  the  jury  find 
out  as  much  as  they  can  of  his  character,  of  his  standing 
among  his  neighbors — then  weigh  his  testimony  in  the 
scale  of  reason.  The  oath  is  born  of  superstition,  and 
everything  born  of  superstition  is  bad.  The  oath  gives 
the  lie  currency'- ;  it  gives  it  for  the  moment  the  ring  of 
true  metal,  and  the  ordinary  average  juror  is  imposed  upon 
and  justice  in  many  iUvStances  defeated.  Nothing  can  be 
more  absurd  than  the  swearing  of  a  man  to  support  the 
Constitution.  Let  him  do  what  he  likes.  If  he  does  not 
support  the  Constitution,  the  probability  is  that  his  con- 
stituents will  refuse  to  support  him.  Every  man  who 
swears  to  support  the  Constitution  swears  to  support  it  as 
he  understands  it,  and  no  two  understand  it  exactly  alike. 
Now,  if  the  oath  brightened  a  man's  intellect  or  added  to  his 
information  or  increased  his  patriotism  or  gave  him  a  little 
more  honesty,  it  would  be  a  good  thing — but  it  doesn't.  And 
as  a  consequence  it  is  a  very  useless  and  absurd  proceeding. 
Nothing  amuses  me  more  in  a  court  than  to  see  one  calf 
kissing  the  tanned  skin   of   another. —  The  CourienBnSsiLo,-sew 

York,"  May  19,  1884. 

REPLY  TO  A  BUFFALO  CRITIC. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  in  reply  to  the  letter  in 
to-day's  Times  signed  R.  H.  S.  ? 

Answer.  I  find  that  I  am  accused  of  "four  flagrant 
wrongs,"  and  while  I  am  not  as  yet  suffering  from  the 
qualms  of  conscience,  nor  do  I  feel  called  upon  to  confess 
and  be  forgiven,  yet  I  have  something  to  say  in  self-defence. 

As  to  the  first  objection  made  by  your  correspondent, 
namely,  that  my  doctrine  deprives  people  of  the  hope  that 
after  this  life  is  ended  they  will  meet  their  fathers,  mothers. 


INTERVIEWSc  199 

sisters  and  brotliers,  long  since  passed  away,  in  the  land 
beyond  the  grave,  and  there  enjoy  their  company  forever, 
I  have  this  to  say :  If  Christianity  is  true  we  are  not  quite 
certain  of  meeting  our  relatives  and  friends  where  we  can 
enjoy  their  company  forever.  If  Christianity  is  true  most 
of  our  friends  will  be  in  hell.  The  ones  I  love  best  and 
whose  memory  I  cherish  will  certainly  be  among  the  lost. 
The  trouble  about  Christianity  is  that  it  is  infinitely  selfish. 
Each  man  thinks  that  if  he  can  save  his  own  little,  shriveled, 
microscopic  soul,  that  is  enough.  No  matter  what  becomes 
■of  the  rest.  Christianity  has  no  consolation  for  a  generous 
man,  I  do  not  wish  to  go  to  heaven  if  the  ones  who  have 
given  me  joy  are  to  be  lost.  I  would  much  rather  go  with 
them.  The  only  thing  that  makes  life  endurable  in  this 
world  is  human  love,  and  yet,  according  to  Christianity, 
that  is  the  very  thing  we  are  not  to  have  in  the  other  world. 
We  are  to  be  so  taken  up  with  Jesus  and  the  angels,  that  we 
shall  care  nothing  about  our  brothers  and  sisters  that  have 
been  damned.  We  shall  be  so  carried  away  with  the  music 
of  the  harp  that  we  shall  not  even  hear  the  wail  of  father 
or  mother.     Such  a  religion  is  a  disgrace  to  human  nature. 

As  to  the  second  objection, — that  society  cannot  be  held 
together  in  peace  and  good  order  without  hell  and  a  belief 
in  eternal  torment,  I  would  ask  why  an  infinitely  wise  and 
good  God  should  make  people  of  so  poor  and  mean  a  char- 
acter that  society  cannot  be  held  together  without  scaring 
them.  Is  it  possible  that  God  has  so  made  the  world  that 
the  threat  of  eternal  punishment  is  necessary  for  the  preser- 
vation of  society? 

The  writer  of  the  letter  also  says  that  it  is  necessary  to 
believe  that  if  a  man  commits  murder  here  he  is  destined 
to  be  punished  in  hell  for  the  offence.  This  is  Christianity, 
Yet  nearly  every  murderer  goes  directly  from  the 
gallows  to  God.  Neany  every  murderer  takes  it  upon 
himself   to    lecture  the    assembled    multitude   who  have 


200  INTERVIEWS. 

gathered  to  see  him  hanged,  and  invite  them  to  meet  him  in 
heaveno  When  the  rope  is  about  his  neck  he  feels  the 
wings  growing.  That  is  the  trouble  with  the  Christian 
doctrine.  Every  murderer  is  told  he  may  repent  and  go  to 
heaven,  and  have  the  happiness  of  seeing  his  victim  in  helh 
Should  heaven  at  any  time  become  dull,  the  vein  of  pleasure 
can  be  re-thrilled  bj^  the  sight  of  his  victim  wriggling  on  the 
gridiron  of  God's  justice.  Really,  Christianity  leads  men  to 
sin  on  credit.  It  sells  rascality  on  time  and  tells  all  the 
devils  they  can  have  the  benefit  of  the  gospel  bankrupt  act. 
The  next  point  in  the  letter  is  that  I  do  not  preach  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind,  but  for  the  money  which  is  the  price  of 
blood.  Of  course  it  makes  no  difference  whether  I  preach 
for  money  or  not.  That  is  to  say,  it  makes  no  difference  to 
the  preached.  The  arguments  I  advance  are  either  good  or 
bad.  If  they  are  bad  they  can  easily  be  answered  by  argu- 
ment. If  they  are  not  they  cannot  be  answered  by  person- 
alities or  by  ascribing  to  me  selfish  motives.  It  is  not  a 
personal  matter.  It  is  a  matter  of  logic,  of  sense — not  a 
matter  of  slander,  vituperation  or  hatred.  The  writer  of  the 
letter,  R.  H.  S.,  may  be  an  exceedingly  good  person,  yet 
that  will  add  no  weight  to  his  or  her  argument.  He  or  she 
may  be  a  ver3^  bad  person,  but  that  would  not  weaken  the  logic 
of  the  letter,  if  it  had  any  logic  to  begin  with.  It  is  not  for 
me  to  say  what  my  motives  are  in  what  I  do  or  say ;  it  must 
be  left  to  the  judgment  of  mankind.  I  presume  I  am  about 
as  bad  as  most  folks,  and  as  good  as  some,  but  my  goodness 
or  badness  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  I  may 
have  committed  every  crime  in  the  world,  yet  that  does  not 
make  the  story  of  the  flood  reasonable,  nor  does  it  even  tend 
to  show  that  the  three  gentlemen  in  the  furnace  were  not 
scorched.  I  may  be  the  best  man  in  the  world,  yet  that  does 
not  go  to  prove  that  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale. 
Let  me  say  right  here  that  if  there  is  another  world  I  believe 
that  every  soul  who  finds  the  way  to  that  shore  will  have  an 


INTERVIEWS.  20I 

everlasting  opportunity  to  do  right — of  reforming.  My 
objection  to  Christianity  is  that  it  is  infinitely  cruel,  in- 
finitely selfish,  and  I  might  add  infinitely  absurd.  I  deprive 
no  one  of  any  hope  unless  you  call  the  expectation  of 
eternal  pain  a  hope. 

Question.  Have  you  read  the  Rev.  Father  Lambert's 
"Notes  on  Ingefsoll,"  and  if  so,  what  have  you  to  say  of 
them  or  in  reply  to  them  ? 

Answer.  I  have  read  a  few  pages  or  paragraphs  of  that 
pamphlet,  and  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  say  anything.  Mr. 
Lambert  has  the  same  right  to  publish  his  ideas  that  I  have, 
and  the  readers  must  judge.  People  who  believe  his  way 
will  probably  think  that  he  has  succeeded  in  answering  me. 
After  all,  he  must  leave  the  public  to  decide.  I  have  no 
anxiety  about  the  decision.  Day  by  day  the  people  are 
advancing,  and  in  a  little  while  the  sacred  superstitions  of 
to-day  will  be  cast  aside  with  the  foolish  myths  and  fables 
of  the  pagan  world. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  there  can  be  no  argument  in  favor  of 
the  supernatural.  Suppose  you  should  ask  if  I  had  read  the 
work  of  that  gentleman  who  says  that  twice  two  are  five. 
I  should  answer  you  that  no  gentleman  can  prove  that 
twice  two  are  five;  and  yet  this  is  exactly  as  easy  as  to 
prove  the  existence  of  the  supernatural.  There  are  no 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  supernatural.  There  are  theories 
and  fears  and  mistakes  and  prejudices  and  guesses,  but  no 
arguments — plenty  of  faith,  but  no  facts ;  plenty  of  divine 
revelation,  but  no  demonstration.  The  supernatural,  in  my 
judgment,  is  a  mistake.     I  believe  in  the  natural. — The  Ttmes^ 

BafEalo,  New  York,  May  19, 1884. 


BLASPHEMY.* 

I  did  not  suppose  that  anybody  was  idiotic  enough  to 
want  me  arrested  for  blasphemy.  It  seems  to  me  that  an  in- 
finite Being  can  take  care  of  himself  without  the  aid  of  any 
agent  of  a  Bible  society.  Perhaps  it  is  wrong  for  me  to 
be  here  while  the  Methodist  Conference  is  in  session.  Of 
course  no  one  who  differs  from  the  Methodist  ministers 
should  ever  visit  Philadelphia  while  they  are  here.  I  most 
humbly  hope  to  be  forgiven. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  law  of  i860  ? 

Answer.  It  is  exceedingly  foolish.  Surely,  there  is  no 
need  for  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  to  protect  an  in- 
finite God,  and  why  should  the  Bible  be  protected  by  law  ? 
The  most  ignorant  priest  can  hold  Darwin  up  to  orthodox 
scorn.  This  talk  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Torrence  shows  that  my 
lectures  are  needed  ;  that  religious  people  do  not  know  what 
real  liberty  is.  I  presume  that  the  law  of  i860  is  an  old 
one  re-enacted.  It  is  a  survival  of  ancient  ignorance  and 
bigotry,  and  no  one  in  the  Legislature  thought  it  worth 
while  to  fight  it.  It  is  the  same  as  the  law  against  swear- 
ing, both  are  dead  letters  and  amount  to  nothing.  They 
are  not  enforced  and  should  not  be.  Public  opinion  will 
regulate  such  matters.  If  all  who  take  the  name  of  God  in 
vain  were  imprisoned  there  would  not  be  room  in  the  jails 
to   hold  the  ministers.     They  speak  of  God  in   the  most 

*  "  If  Robert  Q.  Ingersoll  indulges  in  blasphemy  to-night  in  his  lectnre,  as  he  has  In 
otner  places  and  in  this  city  before,  he  will  be  arrested  before  he  leaves  the  city."  So 
spoke  Rev,  Irwin  H.  Torrence,  General  Secretary  of  the  Pennsylvania  Bible  Society, yes- 
terday afternoon  to  a  Press  reporter.  "  We  have  consulted  counsel  ;  the  law  is  with  us, 
and  Ingersoll  has  but  to  do  what  he  has  done  before,  to  find  himself  in  a  cell.  Here  is 
the  act  of  March  31,  1860  :  " 

"  If  any  person  shall  willfully,  premeditatedly  and  despitefnlly  blaspheme  or  epeak 
loosely  and  profanely  of  Almighty  God,  Christ  Jesus,  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Scripture* 
of  Truth,  such  person,  on  conviction  thereof,  shall  be  sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  not  ex- 
ceeding one  hundred  dollars,  and  undergo  an  imprisonment  not  exceeding  three  month*, 
or  either,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court." 

Last  evening  Colonel  In£:er8oll  sat  in  the  dining  room  at  Guy's  Hotel,  jnet  in  from 
New  York  City.  When  told  of  the  plans  of  Mr.  Torrence  and  his  friends,  he  laughed 
audBaid:  <^2> 


INTERVIEWS. 


203 


flippant  and  snap-your-fingers  way  that  can  be  conceived 
of.  They  speak  to  him  as  though  he  were  an  intimate 
chum,  and  metaphorically  slap  him  on  the  back  in  the  most 
familiar  manner  possible. 

Question,  Have  you  ever  had  any  similar  experience  be- 
fore? 

Answer.  Oh  yes — threats  have  been  made,  but  I  never 
was  arrested.  When  Mr.  Torrence  gets  cool  he  will  see 
that  he  has  made  a  mistake.  People  in  Philadelphia  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  calling  the  citizens  of  Boston  bigots — 
but  there  is  more  real  freedom  of  thought  and  expression  in 
Boston  than  in  almost  any  other  city  in  the  world,  I 
think  that  as  I  am  to  suffer  in  hell  forever,  Mr.  Torrence 
ought  to  be  satisfied  and  let  me  have  a  good  time  here.  He 
can  amuse  himself  through  all  eternity  by  seeing  me  in 
hell,  and  that  ought  to  be  enough  to  satisfy,  not  only  an 
agent,  but  the  whole  Bible  society.  I  never  expected  any 
trouble  in  this  State,  and  most  sincere!)^  hope  that  Mr. 
Torrence  will  not  trouble  me  and  make  the  city  a  laughing 
stock. 

Philadelphia  has  no  time  to  waste  in  such  foolish  things. 
Let  the  Bible  take  its  chances  with  other  books.  Let 
everybody  feel  that  he  has  the  right  freely  to  express  his 
opinions,  provided  he  is  decent  and  kind  about  it.  Certainly 
the  Christians  now  ought  to  treat  Infidels  as  well  as  Peun 
did  Indians. 

Nothing  could  be  more  perfectly  idiotic  than  in  this 
day  and  generation  to  prosecute  any  man  for  giving 
his  conclusions  upon  any  religious  subject.  Mr.  Torrence 
would  have  had  Huxley  and  Haeckel  and  Tyndall  ar- 
rested ;  would  have  had  Humboldt  and  John  Stuart  Mill 
and  Harriet  Martineau  and  George  Eliot  locked  up  in  the 
city  jail.  Mr.  Torrence  is  a  fossil  from  the  old  red  sand- 
stone of  a  mistake.  Let  him  rest.  To  hear  these  people 
talk  you  would  suppose  that  God  is  some  petty  king,  some 


204  INTERVIEWS. 

liliputian  prince,  who  was  about  to  be  dethroned,  and  who 
was  nearly  wild  for  recruits. 

Question,  But  what  would  you  do  if  they  should  wake  aa 
attempt  to  arrest  you  ? 

Answer.  Nothing,  except  to  defend  myself  In  court. — 

Philadelphia  Press^  May  24, 1884. 

POLITICS  AND  BRITISH  COLUMBIA. 

Question.  I  understand  that  there  w&s  some  trouble  ia 
connection  with  your  lecture  in  Victoria,  B.  C.  What  ar^ 
the  facts  ? 

Answer.  The  published  accounts,  as  circulated  by  th^ 
Associated  Press,  were  greatlj^  exaggerated.  The  affair  was 
simply  this:  The  authorities  endeavored  to  prevent  the 
lecture.  They  refused  the  license,  on  the  ground  that  the 
theatre  was  unsafe,  although  it  was  on  the  ground  floor,  had 
many  exits  and  entrances,  not  counting  the  windows.  The 
theatre  was  changed  to  meet  the  objections  of  the  fire  com- 
missioner, and  the  authorities  expressed  their  satisfaction 
and  issued  the  license.  Afterward  further  objection  was 
raised,  and  on  the  night  of  the  lecture,  when  the  building 
was  about  tw^o-thirds  full,  the  police  appeared  and  said 
that  the  lecture  would  not  be  allowed  to  be  delivered,  be- 
cause the  house  was  unsafe.  After  a  good  deal  of  talk,  the 
policeman  in  authority  said  that  there  should  be  another 
door,  whereupon,  my  friends,  in  a  few  minutes,  made  another 
door  with  an  ax  and  saw,  the  crowd  was  admitted  and  the 
lecture  was  delivered.  The  audience  was  well-behaved,  in- 
telligent and  appreciative.  Beyond  some  talking  in  the 
hall,  and  the  natural  indignation  of  those  who  had  pur- 
chased tickets  and  were  refused  admittance,  there  was  no 
disturbance.  I  understand  that  those  who  opposed  the 
lecture  are  now  heartily  ashamed  of  the  course  pursued. 

Question,  Are  you  going  to  take  any  part  in  the  cam- 
paign ? 


INTERVIEWS.  205 

Answer.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  make  any  political 
speeches.  I  have  made  a  good  many  in  the  past,  and,  in 
my  judgmentjhave  done  my  part.  I  have  no  other  interest  in 
politics  than  every  citizen  should  have.  I  want  that  party  to 
triumph  which,  in  my  judgment,  represents  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  country.  I  have  no  doubt  about  the  issue  of  the 
election.  I  believe  that  Mr.  Blaine  will  be  the  next  Presi- 
dent. But  there  are  plenty  of  talkers,  and  I  really  think 
that  I  have  earned  a  vacation. 

Questio7i,  What  do  you  think  Cleveland's  chances  are  in 
New  York  ? 

Answer,  At  this  distance  it  is  hard  to  say.  The  recent 
action  of  Tammany  complicates  matters  somewhat.  But 
my  opinion  is  that  Blaine  will  carry  the  State.  I  had  a 
letter  yesterday  from  that  State,  giving  the  opinion  of  a 
gentleman  well  informed,  that  Blaine  would  carry  New 
York  by  no  less  than  fifty  thousand  majority. 

Question.  What  figure  will  Butler  cut   in  the  campaign  ? 

Answer,  I  hardly  think  that  Butler  will  have  many  fol- 
lowers on  the  4th  of  November.  His  forces  will  gradu- 
ally go  to  one  side  or  the  other.  It  is  only  when  some 
great  principle  is  at  stake  that  thousands  of  men  are  willing 
to  vote  with  a  known  minority. 

Question.  But  what  about  the  Prohibitionists  ? 

Answer,  They  have  a  ver}'-  large  following.  They  are 
fighting  for  something  they  believe  to  be  of  almost  infinite 
consequence,  and  I  can  readily  understand  how  a  Prohibi- 
tionist is  willing  to  be  in  the  minorit)^  It  maj^  be  well 
enough  for  me  to  say  here,  that  my  course  politicall}^  is  not 
determined  by  my  likes  or  dislikes  of  individuals.  I  want 
to  be  governed  by  principles,  not  persons.  If  I  really 
thought  that  in  this  campaign  a  real  principle  was  at 
stake,  I  should  take  part.  The  only  great  question  now 
is  protection,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  in  no  possible 
danger. 


206  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Not  even  in  the  case  of  a  Democratic  victor>^  ? 

Answer.  Not  even  in  the  event  of  a  Democratic  victory. 
No  State  in  the  Union  is  for  free  trade.  Every  free  trader 
has  an  exception.  These  exceptions  combined,  control  the 
tariff  legislation  of  this  country,  and  if  the  Democrats  were 
in  power  to-day,  with  the  control  of  the  House  and  Senate 
and  Executive,  the  exceptions  would  combine  and  protect 
protection.  As  long  as  the  Federal  Government  collects 
taxes  or  revenue  on  imports,  just  so  long  these  revenues 
will  be  arranged  to  protect  home  manufacturers. 

Question.  You  said  that  if  there  were  a  great  prhiciple  at 
stake,  you  would  take  part  in  the  campaign.  You  think, 
then,  that  there  is  no  great  principle  involved  ? 

Answer.  If  it  were  a  matter  of  personal  liberty,!  should 
take  part.  If  the  Republican  party  had  stood  by  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill,  I  should  have  taken  part  in  the  present  cam- 
paign. 

Question.  Still,  I  suppose  we  can  count  on  you  as  a  Repub- 
lican ? 

Answer.  Certainly,   I  am  a  Republican. — Eveninsr  Post^  san 

Francisco,  California,  September  16, 1834. 

INGERSOLL  CATECHISED. 

Question.  Does  Christianity  advance  or  retard  civiliza- 
tion? 

Answer.  If  by  Christianity  you  mean  the  orthodox 
church,  then  I  unhesitatingly  answer  that  it  does  retard 
civilization,  always  has  retarded  it,  and  alwa3^s  will-  I  can 
imagine  no  man  who  can  be  benefited  by  being  made  a 
Catholic  or  a  Presbyterian  or  a  Baptist  or  a  Methodist — or, 
in  other  words,  by  being  made  an  orthodox  Christian.  But 
by  Christianity  I  do  not  mean  morality,  kindness,  forgive- 
ness, justice.  Those  virtues  are  not  distinctively  Christian. 
They  are  claimed  by  Mohammedans  and  Buddhists,  by 
Infidels  and  Atheists — and  practiced  by  some  of  all  classes. 


INTERVIEWS.  207 

Christianity  consists  in  the  miraculous,  the  marvelous,  and 
the  impossible. 

The  one  thing  that  I  most  seriously  object  to  in  Chris- 
tianity is  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment.  That  doctrine 
subverts  every  idea  of  justice.  It  teaches  the  infinite 
absurdity  that  a  finite  offence  can  be  justly  visited  by  eternal 
punishment.  Another  serious  objection  I  have,  is,  that 
Christianity  endeavors  to  destroy  intellectual  liberty. 
Nothing  is  better  calculated  to  retard  civilization  than  to 
subvert  the  idea  of  justice.  Nothing  is  better  calculated  to 
retain  barbarism  than  to  deny  to  every  human  being  the 
right  to  think.  Justice  and  Liberty  are  the  two  wings  that 
bear  man  fon^^ard.  The  church,  for  a  thousand  years,  did 
all  within  its  power  to  prevent  the  expression  of  honest 
thought ;  and  when  the  church  had  power,  there  was  in  this 
world  no  civilization.  We  have  advanced  just  in  the  pro- 
portion that  Christianity  has  lost  power.  Those  nations  in 
which  the  church  is  still  powerful  are  still  almost  savage — 
Portugal,  Spain,  and  many  others  I  might  name.  Probably 
no  country  is  more  completely  under  the  control  of  the 
religious  idea  than  Russia.  The  Czar  is  the  direct  repre- 
sentative of  God.  He  is  the  head  of  the  church,  as  well  as 
of  the  state.  In  Russia  every  mouth  is  a  bastile,  and  every 
tongue  a  convict.  This  Russian  pope,  this  representative 
of  God,  has  on  earth  his  hell  (Siberia),  and  he  imitates  the 
orthodox  God  to  the  extent  of  his  health  and  strength. 

Everywhere  man  advances  as  the  church  loses  power. 
In  my  judgment,  Ireland  can  never  succeed  until  it  ceases 
to  be  Catholic;  and  there  can  be  no  successful  uprising 
while  the  confessional  exists.  At  one  time  in  New  England 
the  church  had  complete  power.  There  was  then  no  relig- 
ious liberty.  And  so  we  might  make  a  tour  of  the  world, 
and  find  that  superstition  always  has  been,  is,  and  forever 
will  be,  inconsistent  with  human  advancement. 

Question.  Do  not  the  evidences  of  design  in  the  universe 
prove  a  Creator? 


208  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  If  there  were  any  evidences  of  design  in  the 
universe,  certainly  they  would  tend  to  prove  a  designer, 
but  they  would  not  prove  a  Creator.  Design  does  not  prove 
creation.  A  man  makes  a  machine.  That  does  not  prove 
that  he  made  the  material  out  of  which  the  machine  is  con- 
structed. You  find  the  planets  arranged  in  accordance  with 
what  you  call  a  plan.  That  does  not  prove  that  they  were 
created.  It  may  prove  that  they  are  governed,  but  it 
certainly  does  not  prove  that  they  were  created.  Is  it  con- 
sistent to  say  that  a  design  cannot  exist  without  a  designer, 
but  that  a  designer  can  ?  Does  not  a  designer  need  a  de- 
sign as  much  as  a  design  needs  a  designer?  Does  not  a 
Creator  need  a  Creator  as  much  as  the  thing  we  think  has 
been  created?  In  other  words,  is  not  this  simply  a  circle 
of  human  ignorance  ?  Why  not  say  that  the  universe  has 
existed  from  eternity,  as  well  as  to  say  that  a  Creator  has 
existed  from  eternity  ?  And  do  you  not  thus  avoid  at  least 
one  absurdity  by  saying  that  the  universe  has  existed  from 
eternity,  instead  of  saying  that  it  was  created  by  a  Creator 
who  existed  from  eternity  ?  Because  if  your  Creator  existed 
from  eternity,  and  created  the  universe,  there  was  a  time 
when  he  commenced;  and  back  of  that,  according  to 
Shelley,  is  *'an  eternity  of  idleness." 

Some  people  say  that  God  existed  from  eternity,  and  has 
created  eternity.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  an  act 
co-equal  with  eternity.  If  you  say  that  God  has  existed  for- 
ever, and  has  always  acted,  then  3^ou  make  the  universe 
eternal,  and  you  make  the  universe  as  old  as  God;  and 
if  the  universe  be  as  old  as  God,  he  certainly  did  not 
create  it. 

These  questions  of  origin  and  destiny — of  infinite  gods— 
are  beyond  the  powers  of  the  human  mind.  They  cannot 
be  solved.  We  might  as  well  try  to  travel  fast  enough  to 
get  beyond  the  horizon.  It  is  like  a  man  trying  to  run 
away  from  his  girdle.     Consequently,  I  believe  in  turning 


INTERVIEWS.  209 

our  attention  to  things  of  importance — to  questions  that 
may  by  some  possibility  be  solved.  It  is  of  no  importance 
to  me  whether  God  exists  or  not.  I  exist,  and  it  is  im- 
portant to  me  to  be  happy  while  I  exist.  Therefore  I  had 
better  turn  my  attention  to  finding  out  the  secret  of  happi- 
ness, instead  of  trying  to  ascertain  the  secret  of  the 
universe. 

I  say  with  regard  to  God,  I  do  not  know ;  and  therefore 
I  am  accused  of  being  arrogant  and  egotistic.  Religious 
papers  say  that  I  do  know,  because  Webster  told  me.  They 
use  Webster  as  a  witness  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Chrisi. 
They  say  that  Webster  was  on  the  God  side,  and  therefore 
I  ought  to  be.  I  can  hardly  afford  to  take  Webster's  ideas 
of  another  world,  when  his  ideas  about  this  were  so  bad. 
When  bloodhounds  were  pursuing  a  woman  through  the 
tangled  swamps  of  the  South — she  hungry  for  liberty — 
Webster  took  the  side  of  the  bloodhounds.  Such  a  man  is 
no  authority  for  me.  Bacon  denied  the  Copernican  system 
of  astronomy ;  he  is  an  unsafe  guide.  Wesley  believed  in 
witches;  I  cannot  follow  him.  No  man  should  quote  a 
name  instead  of  an  argument ;  no  man  should  bring  forward 
a  person  instead  of  a  principle,  unless  he  is  willing  to  accept 
all  the  ideas  of  that  person. 

Question.  Is  not  a  pleasant  illusion  preferable  to  dreary 
truth — a  future  life  being  in  question  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  is.  I  think  that  a  pleasing  illusion 
is  better  than  a  terrible  truth,  so  far  as  its  immediate  results 
are  concerned.  I  would  rather  think  the  one  I  love  living, 
than  to  think  her  dead.  I  would  rather  think  that  I  had  a 
large  balance  in  bank  than  that  my  account  was  overdrawn. 
I  would  rather  think  I  was  healthy  than  to  know  that  I  had 
a  cancer.  But  if  we  have  an  illusion,  let  us  have  it  pleasing. 
The  orthodox  illusion  is  the  worst  that  can  possibly  be  con- 
ceived. Take  hell  out  of  that  illusion,  take  eternal  pain 
away  from  that  dream,  and  say  that  the  whole  world  is  to 


2IO  INTERVIEWS. 

be  happy  forever — then  you  might  have  an  excuse  for 
calling  it  a  pleasant  illusion ;  but  it  is,  in  fact,  a  nightmare — 
a  perpetual  horror — a  cross,  on  which  the  happiness  of  man 
has  been  crucified. 

Question.  Are  not  religion  and  morals  inseparable? 

Answer.  Religion  and  morality  have  nothing  in  com- 
mon, and  yet  there  is  no  religion  except  the  practice  of 
morality.  But  what  you  call  religion  is  simply  superstition. 
Religion  as  it  is  now  taught  teaches  our  duties  toward  God 
— our  obligations  to  the  Infinite,  and  the  results  of  a  failure 
to  discharge  those  obligations.  I  believe  that  we  are  under 
no  obligations  to  the  Infinite ;  that  we  cannot  be.  All  our 
obligations  are  to  each  other,  and  to  sentient  beings. 
"  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved," 
has  nothing  to  do  with  morality.  "  Do  unto  others  as  ye 
would  that  others  should  do  unto  you"  has  nothing  to  do 
with  believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Baptism  has 
nothing  to  do  with  morality.  *'  Pay  your  honest  debts." 
That  has  nothing  to  do  with  baptism.  What  is  called 
religion  is  simple  superstition,  with  which  morality  has 
nothing  to  do. 

The  churches  do  not  prevent  people  from  committing 
natural  offences,  but  restrain  them  from  committing  arti- 
ficial ones.  As  for  instance,  the  Catholic  Church  can  prevent 
one  of  its  members  from  eating  meat  on  Friday,  but  not 
from  whipping  his  wife.  The  Episcopal  Church  can  prevent 
dancing,  it  may  be,  in  Lent,  but  not  slander.  The  Presby- 
terian can  keep  a  man  from  working  on  Sunday,  but  not 
from  practicing  deceit  on  Monday.  And  so  I  might  go 
through  the  churches.  They  lay  the  greater  stress  upon  the 
artificial  offences.  Those  countries  that  are  the  most  re- 
ligious are  the  most  immoral.  When  the  world  was  under 
the  control  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  reached  the  very  pit 
of  immorality,  and  nations  have  advanced  in  morals  just  in 
proportion  that  they  have  lost  Christianity. 


INTERVIEWS.  211 

Question.  It  is  frequently  asserted  that  there  is  nothing 
new  in  your  objections  against  Christianity.  What  is  your 
reply  to  such  assertions? 

A?iszver.  Of  course,  the  editors  of  religious  papers  will 
say  this;  Christians  will  say  this.  In  my  opinion,  an  argu- 
ment is  new  until  it  has  been  answered.  An  argument  is 
absolutely  fresh,  and  has  upon  its  leaves  the  dew  of  morning, 
until  it  has  been  refuted.  All  men  have  experienced,  it  may 
be,  in  some  degree,  what  we  call  love.  Millions  of  men 
have  written  about  it.  The  subject  of  course  is  old.  It  is 
only  the  presentation  that  can  be  new.  Thousands  of  men 
have  attacked  superstition.  The  subject  is  old,  but  the 
manner  in  which  the  facts  are  handled,  the  arguments 
grouped — these  may  be  forever  new.  Millions  of  men  have 
preached  Christianity.  Certainly  there  is  nothing  new  in 
the  original  ideas.  Nothing  can  be  new  except  the  present- 
ation, the  grouping.  The  ideas  may  be  old,  but  they  may 
be  clothed  in  new  garments  of  passion  ;  they  may  be  given 
additional  human  interest.  A  man  takes  a  fact,  or  an  old 
subject,  as  a  sculptor  takes  a  rock ;  the  rock  is  not  new. 
Of  this  rock  he  makes  a  statue ;  the  statue  is  new.  And 
3' et  some  orthodox  man  might  say  there  is  nothing  new 
about  that  statue:  "I  know  the  man  that  dug  the  rock;  I 
know  the  owner  of  the  quarry."  Substance  is  eternal ;  forms 
are  new.  So  in  the  human  mind  certain  ideas,  or  in  the 
human  heart  certain  passions,  are  forever  old ;  but  genius 
forever  gives  them  new  forms,  new  meanings ;  and  this  is 
the  perpetual  originality  of  genius. 

Questio7i.  Do  you  consider  that  churches  are  injurious  to 
the  communit3^  ? 

Answer.  In  the  exact  proportion  that  churches  teach 
falsehood ;  in  the  exact  proportion  that  they  destroy  liberty 
of  thought,  the  free  action  of  the  human  mind ;  in  the  exact 
proportion  that  they  teach  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pain,  and 
convince  people  of  its  truth — they  are   injurious.     In  the 


212  INTERVIEWS. 

proportion  that  they  teach  morality  and  justice,  and  prac- 
tice kindness  and  charity — in  that  proportion  they  are  a 
benefit.  Every  church,  therefore,  is  a  mixed  problem — 
part  good  and  part  bad.  In  one  direction  it  leads  toward 
and  sheds  light;  in  the  other  direction  its  influence  is 
entirely  bad. 

Now,  I  would  like  to  civilize  the  churches,  so  that  they 
will  be  able  to  do  good  deeds  without  building  bad  creeds. 
In  other  words,  take  out  the  superstitious  and  the  mirac- 
ulous, and  leave  the  human  and  the  moral. 

Quesiio7i.  Why  do  you  not  respond  to  the  occasional 
clergyman  who  replies  to  your  lectures  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  no  clergyman  has  ever  re- 
plied to  my  lectures.  In  the  second  place,  no  clerg3^man 
ever  will  reply  to  my  lectures.  He  does  not  answer  my 
arguments — he  attacks  me ;  and  the  replies  that  I  have  seen 
are  not  worth  answering.  They  are  far  below  the  dignity 
of  the  question  under  discussion.  Most  of  them  are  ill- 
mannered,  as  abusive  as  illogical,  and  as  malicious  as  weak. 
I  cannot  reply  without  feeling  humiliated.  I  cannot  use 
their  weapons,  and  my  weapons  they  do  not  understand.  I 
attack  Christianity  because  it  is  cruel,  and  they  account 
for  all  my  actions  by  putting  behind  them  base  motives. 
They  make  it  at  once  a  personal  question.  They  imagine 
that  epithets  are  good  enough  arguments  with  which  to 
answ^er  an  Infidel.  A  few  years  ago  they  would  have  im- 
prisoned me.  A  few  years  before  that  they  would  have 
burned  me.  We  have  advanced.  Now  they  only  slander ; 
and  I  congratulate  myself  on  the  fact  that  even  that  is  not 
believed.  Ministers  do  not  believe  each  other  about  each 
other.  The  truth  has  never  yet  been  ascertained  in  any 
trial  by  a  church.  The  longer  the  trial  lasts,  the  obscurer 
is  the  truth.  They  will  not  believe  each  other,  even  on 
oath;  and  one  of  the  most  celebrated  ministers  of  this 
country  has  publicly  announced  that  there  is  no  use  in 


INTERVIEWS.  213 

answering  a  lie  started  by  his  own  church ;  that  if  he  does 
answer  it — if  he  does  kill  it — forty  more  lies  will  come  to 
the  funeral. 

In  this  connection  we  must  remember  that  the  priests  of 
one  religion  never  credit  the  miracles  of  another  religion. 
Is  this  because  priests  instinctively  know  priests?  Now, 
when  a  Christian  tells  a  Buddhist  some  of  the  miracles  of  the 
Testament,  the  Buddhist  smiles.  When  a  Buddhist  tells  a 
Christian  the  miracles  performed  by  Buddha,  the  Christian 
laughs.  This  reminds  me  of  an  incident.  A  man  told  a 
most  wonderful  story.  Everybody  present  expressed  sur- 
prise and  astonishment,  except  one  man.  He  said  nothing; 
he  did  not  even  change  countenance.  One  who  noticed 
that  the  story  had  no  effect  on  this  man,  said  to  him: 
*'You  do  not  seem  to  be  astonished  in  the  least  at  this 
marvelous  tale."  The  man  replied,  "No;  I  am  a  liar 
myself." 

You  see,  I  am  not  trying  to  answer  individual  ministers. 
I  am  attacking  the  whole  body  of  superstition.  I  am  trying 
to  kill  the  entire  dog,  and  I  do  not  feel  like  wasting  any 
time  killing  fleas  on  that  dog.  When  the  dog  dies,  the  fleas 
will  be  out  of  provisions,  and  in  that  way  we  shall  answer 
them  all  at  once. 

So,  I  do  not  bother  myself  answering  religious  news- 
papers. In  the  first  place,  they  are  not  worth  answering ; 
and  in  the  second  place,  to  answer  would  only  produce  a 
new  crop  of  falsehoods.  You  know,  the  editor  of  a  re- 
ligious newspaper,  as  a  rule,  is  one  who  has  failed  in  the 
pulpit;  and  you  can  imagine  the  brains  necessary  to  edit  a 
religious  weekly  from  this  fact.  I  have  known  some  good 
religious  editors.  By  some  I  mean  one.  I  do  not  say  that 
there  are  not  others,  but  I  do  say  I  do  not  know  them.  I 
might  add,  here,  that  the  one  I  did  know  is  dead. 

Since  I  have  been  in  this  city  there  have  been  some 
''replies"  to  me.      They  have    been    almost  idiotic.      A 


214  INTERVIEWS, 

Catholic  priest  asked  me  how  I  had  the  impudence  to  diffei 
with  Newton.  Newton,  he  says,  believed  in  a  God ;  and  1 
ask  this  Catholic  priest  how  he  has  the  impudence  to  differ 
with  Newton.  Newton  was  a  Protestant.  This  simply 
shows  the  absurdity  of  using  men's  names  for  arguments. 
This  same  priest  proves  the  existence  of  God  by  a  pagan 
orator.  Is  it  possible  that  God's  last  witness  died  with 
Cicero  ?  If  it  is  necessary  to  believe  in  a  God  now,  the 
witnesses  ought  to  be  on  hand  now. 

Another  man,  pretending  to  answer  me,  quotes  Lc 
Conte,  a  geologist ;  and  according  to  this  geologist  we  are 
"getting  very  near  to  the  splendors  of  the  great  white 
throne."  Where  is  the  great  white  throne  ?  Can  any  one, 
by  studying  geology,  find  the  locality  of  the  great  white 
throne  ?  To  what  stratum  does  it  belong  ?  In  what  geo- 
logic period  was  the  great  white  throne  formed  ?  What  on 
earth  has  geology  to  do  with  the  throne  of  God  ? 

The  truth  is,  there  can  be  no  reply  to  the  argument  that 
man  should  be  governed  by  his  reason ;  that  he  should  de- 
pend upon  observation  and  experience ;  that  he  should 
use  the  faculties  he  has  for  his  own  benefit,  and  the  benefit 
of  his  fellow-men.  There  is  no  answer.  It  is  not  within 
the  power  of  man  to  substantiate  the  supernatural.  It  is 
beyond  the  power  of  evidence. 

Question.  Why  do  the  theological  seminaries  find  it  diffi- 
cult to  get  students  ? 

Answer.  I  was  told  last  spring,  at  New  Haven,  that 
the  "theologs,"  as  they  call  the  young  men  there  being 
fitted  for  the  ministry,  were  not  regarded  as  intellectual 
by  all  the  other  students.  The  orthodox  pulpit  has  no  re 
wards  for  genius.  It  has  rewards  only  for  stupidity,  for 
belief — not  for  investigation,  not  for  thought ;  and  the 
consequence  is  that  young  men  of  talent  avoid  the  pulpit. 
I  think  I  heard  the  other  day  that  of  all  the  students  at 
Harvard   only  nine  are  preparing  for  the  ministry.     The 


INTERVIEWS.  215 

truth  IS,  the  ministry  is  not  regarded  as  an  intellectual  oc- 
cupation. The  average  church  now  consists  of  women  and 
children.  Men  go  to  please  their  wives,  or  stay  at  home 
and  subscribe  to  please  their  wives ;  and  the  wives  are  be- 
ginning to  think,  and  many  of  them  are  staying  at  home. 
Many  of  them  now  prefer  the  theatre  or  the  opera  or  the 
park  or  the  seashore  or  the  forest  or  the  companionship  of 
their  husbands  and  children  at  home. 

Question.  How  does  the  religious  state  of  California  com- 
pare with  the  rest  of  the  Union  ? 

Answer.  I  find  that  sensible  people  everywhere  are 
about  the  same,  and  the  proportion  of  Freethinkers  de- 
pends  on  the  proportion  of  sensible  folks.  I  think  that 
California  has  her  full  share  of  sensible  people.  I  find 
everywhere  the  best  people  and  the  brightest  people — 
the  people  with  the  most  heart  and  the  best  brain — all 
tending  toward  free  thought.  Of  course,  a  man  of  brain 
cannot  believe  the  miracles  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
A  man  of  heart  cannot  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
pain.  We  have  found  that  other  religions  are  like  ours, 
with  precisely  the  same  basis,  the  same  idiotic  miracles, 
the  same  martyrs,  the  same  early  fathers,  and,  as  a  rule, 
the  same  Christ  or  Savior.  It  will  hardly  do  to  say  that  all 
others  like  ours  are  false,  and  ours  the  only  true  one,  when 
others  substantially  like  it  are  thousands  of  years  older. 
We  have  at  last  found  that  a  religion  is  simply  an  effort  on 
the  part  of  man  to  account  for  what  he  sees,  what  he  ex- 
periences, what  he  feels,  what  he  fears,  and  what  he  hopes. 
Every  savage  has  his  philosophy.  That  is  his  religion  and 
his  science. 

The  religions  of  to-day  are  the  sciences  of  the  past; 
and  it  may  be  that  the  vsciences  of  to-day  will  be  the 
religions  of  the  future,  and  that  other  sciences  will  be  as 
far  beyond  them  as  the  science  of  to-day  is  beyond  the  re- 
ligion of  to-day.    As  a  rule,  religion  is  a  sanctified  mistake, 


2l6  INTERVIEWS. 

and  heresy  a  slandered  fact.  In  other  words,  the  humar 
mind  grows — and  as  it  grows  it  abandons  the  old,  and  the 
old  gets  it  revenge  by  maligning  the  new. — T/te  San  Franciscan 

San  Francisco,  October  4, 1884. 

BLAINE'S  DEFEAT. 

Question.  Colonel  j  the  fact  that  you  took  no  part  in  the 
late  campaign,  is  a  subject  for  general  comment,  and  know- 
ing your  former  enthusiastic  advocacy  and  support  oi 
Blaine,  the  people  are  somewhat  surprised,  and  would  like 
to  know  why  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  generally  supposed  thai 
Blaine  needed  no  help.  His  friends  were  perfectly  confi- 
dento  They  counted  on  a  very  large  Catholic  support, 
The  Irish  were  supposed  to  be  spoiling  to  vote  for  Blaine 
and  Logan,  All  the  Protestant  ministers  were  also  said  tc 
be  solid  for  the  ticket.  Under  these  circumstances  it  was 
hardly  prudent  for  me  to  say  much. 

I  was  for  Blaine  in  1876=  In  1880  I  was  for  Garfield,  and 
in  1884  I  was  for  Gresham  or  Harlan.  I  believed  then  and 
I  believe  now  that  either  one  of  those  men  could  have  been 
elected.  Blaine  is  an  exceedingly  able  man,  but  he  made 
some  mistakes  and  some  very  unfortunate  utterances,  I 
took  no  part  in  the  campaign;  first,  because  there  was 
no  very  important  issue,  no  great  principle  at  stake,  and. 
second,  I  thought  that  I  had  done  enough,  and,  third,  be- 
cause I  wanted  to  do  something  else. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  were  the  causes  foi 
Blaine's  defeat  ? 

Answer.  First,  because  of  dissension  in  the  party. 
Second,  because  party  ties  have  grown  weak.  Third,  the 
Prohibition  vote.  Fourth,  the  Delmonico  dinner — toe 
many  rich  men.  Fifth,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Burchard  with  his 
Rum,  Romanism  and  Rebellion.  Sixth,  giving  too  mucli 
attention  to  Ohio  and  not  enough  to  New  York,  Seventh, 
the  unfortunate  remark  of  Mr.  Blaine, that  ''  the  State  can 


INTERVIEWS.  217 

not  get  along  without  the  Church."  Eighth,  the  weakness 
of  the  present  administration»  Ninth,  the  abandonment 
by  the  party  of  the  colored  people  of  the  South.  Tenth, 
the  feeling  against  monopolies,  and  not  least,  a  general 
desire  for  a  change. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  will  be  the  result  of 
Cleveland's  election  and  administration  upon  the  general 
political  and  business  interests  of  the  country  ? 

Answer.  The  business  interests  will  take  care  of  them- 
selveSo  A  dollar  has  the  instinct  of  self-preservation 
largely  developed.  The  tariff  will  take  care  of  itself.  No 
State  is  absolutely  for  free  trade.  In  each  State  there  is  an 
exception.  The  exceptions  will  combine,  as  they  always 
have.  Michigan  will  help  Pennsylvania  take  care  of  iron, 
if  Pennsylvania  will  help  Michigan  take  care  of  salt  and 
lumber.  Louisiana  will  help  Pennsylvania  and  Michigan  if 
they  help  her  take  care  of  sugar.  Colorado,  California  and 
Ohio  will  help  the  other  States  if  they  wall  help  them  about 
wool — and  so  I  might  make  a  tour  of  the  States,  ending 
with  Vermont  and  maple  sugan  I  do  not  expect  that 
Cleveland  wdll  do  any  great  harm.  The  Democrats  want  to 
stay  in  power,  and  that  desire  will  give  security  for  good 
behavior. 

Qtiestio7t.  Will  he  listen  to  or  grant  any  demands  made 
of  him  by  the  alleged  Independent  Republicans  of  New 
York,  either  in  his  appointments  or  policies? 

Answer.  Of  this  I  know  nothing.  The  Independents — 
from  what  I  know  of  them — will  be  too  modest  to  claim 
credit  or  to  ask  office.  They  were  actuated  by  pure  prin- 
ciple. They  did  what  they  did  to  purify  the  party,  so  that 
they  could  stay  in  it.  Now  that  it  has  been  purified  they 
will  remain,  and  hate  the  Democratic  party  as  badly  as 
ever.  I  hardly  think  that  Cleveland  would  insult  their  mo- 
tives by  offering  loaves  and  fishes,     All  they  desire  is  the 

approval  of  their  own  consciences. — The  Commonwealth,  Topeka, 
Kansas,  November  21, 1884. 


BLAINE'S  DEFEAT. 

Question.  How  do  you  account  for  the  defeat  of  Mr. 
Blaine  ? 

Answer.  How  do  I  account  for  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Blaine? 
I  will  answer:  St.  John,  the  Independents,  Burchard, 
Butler  and  Cleveland  did  it.  The  truth  is  that  during  the 
war  a  majority  of  the  people,  counting  those  in  the  South, 
were  opposed  to  putting  down  the  Rebellion  by  force.  It  is 
also  true  that  when  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  was 
issued  a  majority  of  the  people,  counting  the  whole  country, 
were  opposed  to  it,  and  it  is  also  true  that  when  the  colored 
neople  were  made  citizens  a  majority  of  the  people,  count- 
ing the  whole  country,  were  opposed  to  it. 

Now,  while, in  my  judgment,  an  overwhelming  majority 
of  the  whole  people  have  honestly  acquiesced  in  the  result 
of  the  war,  and  are  now  perfectly  loyal  to  the  Union,  and 
have  also  acquiesced  in  the  abolition  of  slavery,  I  doubt 
very  much  whether  they  are  really  in  favor  of  giving  the  col- 
ored man  the  right  to  vote.  Of  course  they  have  not  the  power 
now  to  take  that  right  away,  but  they  feel  anything  but 
kindly  toward  the  party  that  gave  the  colored  man  that 
right.  That  is  the  only  result  of  the  war  that  is  not  fully 
accepted  by  the  South  and  by  many  Democrats  of  the 
North. 

Another  thiiig,the  Republican  party  was  divided — divided 
too  by  personal  hatreds.  The  party  was  greatly  injured  by 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  which  the  Civil  Rights 
Bill  was  held  void.  Now,  a  great  many  men  who  kept  with 
the  Republican  party,  did  so  because  they  believed  that  thai 
party  would  protect  the  colored  man  in  the  South,  but  as 
soon  as  the  Court  decided  that  all  the  laws  passed  were  un- 


INTERVIEWS.  219 

constitutional,  these  men  felt  free  to  vote  for  the  other 
side,  feeling  that  it  would  make  no  difference^  They  rea- 
soned this  way :  If  the  Republican  party  cannot  defend 
the  colored  people,  why  make  a  pretence  that  excites  hatred 
on  one  side  and  disarms  the  other?  If  the  colored  people 
have  to  depend  upon  the  State  for  protection,  and  the  Fed- 
eral Government  cannot  interfere,  why  say  any  more 
about  it? 

I  think  that  these  men  made  a  mistake  and  our  party 
made  a  mistake  in  accepting  without  protest  a  decision  that 
was  far  worse  than  the  one  delivered  in  the  case  of  Dred 
Scott.  By  accepting  this  decision  the  most  important  issue 
was  abandoned.  The  Republican  party  must  take  the  old 
ground  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to 
protect  the  citizens,  and  that  it  cannot  simply  leave  that 
duty  to  the  State.  It  must  see  to  it  that  the  State  performs 
that  duty. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  the  published  report  that  Dorsey 
claims  to  have  paid  you  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for 
your  services  in  the  Star  Route  Cases  ? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  the  report,  but  Dorsey  never  said 
anything  like  that. 

Qitestion.  Is  there  no  truth  in  the  statement,  then  ? 

Answer.  Well,  Dorsey  never  said  anything  of  the  kind. 

Question.  Then  you  do  not  deny  that  you  received  such 
an  enormous  fee  ? 

Answer.  All  I  say  is  that  Dorsey  did  not  say  I  did.* 

The  Commercial^  Louisville,  Kentucky,  October  24,  1884, 

*  Cot.  Ingersoll  has  been  60  criticised  and  maligned  for  defending  Mr.  Dorsey  in  the 
Sta:  Eoute  cases,  and  bo  frequently  charged  with  having  received  an  enormous  fee,  that 
I  think  it  but  simple  justice  to  his  memory  to  say  that  he  received  no  such  fee,  and  that 
the  ridiculously  small  sums  he  did  receive  veere  much  more  than  offset  by  the  amoont 
he  had  to  pay  as  indorser  of  Mr.  Dorsey's  paper,— C.  P.  Farbkix. 


PLAGIARISM  AND  POLITICS. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  charges  pub- 
lished in  this  morning's  Herald  to  the  effect  that  you  copied 
your  lecture  about  "  Mistakes  of  Moses  "  from  a  chapter 
bearing  the  same  title  in  a  book  called  Hittell's  "  Evidences 
against  Christianity"? 

Answer.  All  I  have  to  say  is  that  the  charge  is  utterly 
false.  I  will  give  a  thousand  dollars  reward  to  any  one 
who  will  furnish  a  book  published  before  my  lecture,  in 
which  that  lecture  can  be  found.  It  is  wonderful  how 
malicious  the  people  are  who  love  their  enemies.  This 
charge  is  wholly  false,  as  all  others  of  like  nature  are.  I 
do  not  have  to  copy  the  writings  of  others.  The  Christians 
do  not  seem  to  see  that  they  are  constantly  complimenting 
me  by  saying  that  what  I  write  is  so  good  that  I  must  have 
stolen  it.     Poor  old  orthodoxy  ! 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  incoming  adminis- 
tration, and  how  will  it  affect  the  country  ? 

Answer.  I  feel  disposed  to  give  Cleveland  a  chance.  If 
he  does  the  fair  thing,  then  it  is  the  duty  of  all  good 
citizens  to  say  so.  I  do  not  expect  to  see  the  whole  country 
go  to  destruction  because  the  Democratic  party  is  in  power. 
Neither  do  I  believe  that  business  is  going  to  suffer  on  that 
account.  The  times  are  hard,  and  I  fear  will  be  much 
harder,  but  they  w^ould  have  been  substantially  the  same  if 
Blaine  had  been  elected.  I  wanted  the  Republican  party 
to  succeed  and  fully  expected  to  see  Mr.  Blaine  President, 
but  I  believe  in  making  the  best  of  what  has  happened,  ^ 
want  no  office,  I  want  good  government — wise  legislation. 
I  believe  in  protection,  but  I  want  the  present  tariff  re- 
formed and  I  hope  the  Democrats  will  be  wise  enough  to 
do  so.  c»o) 


INTERVIEWS.  221 

Question.  How  will  the  Democratic  victory  affect  the  col- 
ored people  in  the  South  ? 

Answer.  Certainly  their  condition  will  not  be  worse  than 
it  has  been.  The  Supreme  Court  decided  that  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill  was  unconstitutional  and  that  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment cannot  interfere.  That  was  a  bad  decision  and  our 
party  made  a  mistake  in  not  protesting  against  it.  I  believe 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  protect  all 
its  citizens,  at  home  as  well  as  abroad.  My  hope  is  that 
there  will  be  a  division  in  the  Democratic  party.  That  party 
has  something  now  to  divide..  At  last  it  has  a  bone,  and 
probably  the  fighting  will  commence.  I  hope  that  some 
new  issue  will  take  color  out  of  politics,  something  about 
which  both  white  and  colored  may  divide.  Of  course 
nothing  would  please  me  better  than  to  see  the  Democratic 
party  become  great  and  grand  enough  to  give  the  colored 
people  their  rights. 

Qtcestion.  Why  did  you  not  take  any  part  in  the  cam- 
paign ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  was  afraid  of  frightening  the  preachers 
away.  I  might  have  done  good  by  scaring  one,  but  I  did 
not  know  Burchard  until  it  was  too  late.  Seriously,  I  did 
not  think  that  I  was  needed.  I  supposed  that  Blaine  had  a 
walkover,  that  he  was  certain  to  carry  New  York.  I  had 
business  of  my  own  to  attend  to  and  did  not  not  wish  to  in- 
terfere with  the  campaign. 

Qtcestion.  What  do  you  think  of  the  policy  of  nominating 
Blaine  in  1888,  as  has  been  proposed  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  too  early  to  say  what  will  be  done  in 
1888.  Parties  do  not  exist  for  one  man.  Parties  have  cer- 
tain ends  in  view  and  they  choose  men  as  instruments  to 
accomplish  these  ends.  Parties  belong  to  principles,  not 
persons.  No  party  can  afford  to  follow  anj^body.  If  in 
1888  Mr.  Blaine  should  appear  to  be  the  best  man  for  the 
party  then  he  will  be  nominated,  otherwise  not,     I  know 


222  INTERVIEWS. 

nothing  about  any  intention  to  nominate  him  again  and 
have  no  idea  whether  he  has  that  ambition.  The  Whig 
party  was  intensely  loyal  to  Henry  Clay  and  forgot  the 
needs  of  the  country,  and  allowed  the  Democrats  to  suc- 
ceed with  almost  unknown  men.  Parties  should  not  be- 
long to  persons,  but  persons  should  belong  to  parties. 
Let  us  not  be  too  previous — let  us  wait. 

Ouestio7i.  What  do  you  think  of  the  course  pursued  by 
the  Rev.  Drs.  Ball  and  Burchard? 

A7iswer.  In  politics  the  preacher  is  somewhat  dangerous. 
He  has  a  standard  of  his  own;  he  has  queer  ideas  of  evi- 
dence, great  reliance  on  hearsay  ;  he  is  apt  to  believe  things 
against  candidates,  just  because  he  wants  to.  The  preacher 
thinks  that  all  who  differ  with  him  are  instigated  by  the 
Devil — that  their  intentions  are  evil,  and  that  when  they  be- 
have themselves  they  are  simply  covering  the  poison  with 
sugar.  It  would  have  been  far  better  for  the  country  if 
Mr.  Ball  had  kept  still.  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  his 
intentions  were  not  good.  He  likely  thought  it  his  duty 
to  lift  a  warning  voice,  to  bawl  aloud  and  to  spare  not,  but  I 
think  he  made  a  mistake,  and  he  now  probably  thinks  so 
himself.  Mr.  Burchard  was  bound  to  say  a  smart  thing. 
It  sounded  well,  and  he  allowed  his  ears  to  run  away  with 
his  judgment.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  connection 
between  rum  and  Romanism.  Catholic  countries  do  not 
use  as  much  alcohol  as  Protestant.  England  has  far  more 
drunkards  than  Spain.  Scotland  can  discount  Italy  or 
Portugal  in  good,  square  drinking.  So  there  is  no  connec- 
tion between  Romanism  and  rebellion.  Ten  times  as  man  j?- 
Methodists  and  twenty  times  as  many  Baptists  went  into 
'-Jie  Rebellion  as  Catholics.  Thousands  of  Catholics  fought 
•r  bravely  as  Protestants  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
No  doubt  Mr.  Burchard  intended  well.  He  thought  he  was 
giving  Blaine  a  battle-cry  that  would  send  consternation 
into  the   hearts  of  the  opposition.     My  opinion  is  that  in 


INTERVIEWS.  223 

the  next  campaign  the  preachers  will  not  be  called  to  the 
front  Of  course  they  have  the  same  right  to  express  their 
views  that  other  people  have,  but  other  people  have  the 
right  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  appearing  to  agree  with 
them.  I  think  though  that  it  is  about  time  to  let  up  on 
Burchard.     He  has  already  unloaded  on  the  Lord. 

Question.  Do  you  think  Cleveland  will  put  any  Southern 
men  in  his  Cabinet. 

Ayiswer,  I  do.  Nothing  could  be  in  worse  taste  than  to 
ignore  the  section  that  gave  him  three-fourths  of  his  vote. 
The  people  have  put  the  Democratic  party  in  power. 
They  intended  to  do  what  they  did,  and  why  should  the 
South  not  be  recognized  ?  Garland  would  make  a  good 
Attorney  -  General ;  Lamar  has  the  ability  to  fill  any  posi- 
tion in  the  Cabinet.  I  could  name  several  others  well 
qualified,  and  I  suppose  that  two  or  three  Southern  men 
will  be  in  the  Cabinet.  If  they  are  good  enough  to  elect  a 
President  they  are  good  enough  to  be  selected  by  a  Presi- 
dent. 

Question,  What  do  you  think  of  Mr.  Conkling's  course  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Conkling  certainly  had  the  right  to  keep 
still.  He  was  under  no  obligation  to  the  party.  The  Re- 
publican papers  have  not  tried  to  secure  his  services.  He 
has  been  very  generally  and  liberally  denounced  ever  since 
his  quarrel  with  Mr.  Garfield,  and  it  is  only  natural  to  resent 
what  a  man  feels  to  be  an  injustice.  I  suppose  he  has  done 
what  he  honestly  thought  was,  under  the  circumstances, 
his  duty.  I  believe  him  to  be  a  man  of  stainless  integrity, 
and  he  certainly  has  as  much  independence  of  character  as 
one  man  can  carry.  It  is  time  to  put  the  party  whip  away. 
People  can  be  driven  from,  but  not  to,  the  Republican  party. 
If  we  expect  to  win  in  1888  we  must  welcome  recruits. — t-j^ 

Flatn  Dealer  Cleveland,  omo,  Dec.  11,  1884. 


RELIGIOUS  PREJUDICE. 

Question.  Will  a  time  ever  come  when  political  caia-' 
paigns  will  be  conducted  independently  of  religious  preju- 
dice? 

Answer,  As  long  as  men  are  prejudiced,  they  will  prob- 
ably be  religious,  and  certainly  as  long  as  they  are  religious 
they  will  be  prejudiced,  and  every  religionist  who  imagines 
the  next  world  infinitely  more  important  than  this,  and 
who  imagines  that  he  gets  his  orders  from  God  instead  of 
from  his  own  reason,  or  from  his  fellow-citizens,  and  who 
thinks  that  he  should  do  something  for  the  glory  of  God  in- 
stead of  for  the  benefit  of  his  fellow-citizens — just  as  long 
as  they  believe  these  things,  just  so  long  their  prejudices 
will  control  their  votes.  Every  good,  ignorant,  orthodox 
Christian  places  his  Bible  above  laws  and  constitutions. 
Every  good,  sincere  and  ignorant  Catholic  puts  pope  above 
king  and  president,  as  well  as  above  the  legally  expressed 
will  of  a  majority  of  his  countrymen.  Every  Christian 
believes  God  to  be  the  source  of  all  authority.  I  believe 
that  the  authority  to  govern  comes  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed»  Man  is  the  source  of  powder,  and  to  protect  and 
increase  human  happiness  should  be  the  object  of  govern- 
ment. I  think  that  religious  prejudices  are  growing  weaker 
because  religious  belief  is  growing  weaker.  And  these  prej- 
udices—  should  men  ever  become  really  civilized — will 
finally  fade  away.  I  think  that  a  Presbyterian,  to-day,  has 
no  more  prejudice  against  an  Atheist  than  he  has  against  a 
Catholic.  A  Catholic  does  not  dislike  an  Infidel  any  more 
than  he  does  a  Presb3^terian,  and  I  believe,  to-day,  that  most 
of  the  Presbyterians  would  rather  see  an  Atheist  President 
than  a  pronounced  Catholic.  i^^ 


INTERVIEWS,  225 

Question.  Is  Agnosticism  gaining  ground  in  the  United 
States? 

Answer.  Of  course,  there  are  thousands  and  thousands  of 
men  who  have  now  advanced  intellectually  to  the  point  of 
perceiving  the  limit  of  human  knowledge.  In  other  words, 
at  last  the}^  are  beginning  to  know  enough  to  know  what 
can  and  what  cannot  be  known.  Sensible  men  know  that 
nobody  knows  whether  an  infinite  God  exists  or  not.  Sensi- 
ble men  know  that  an  infinite  personality  cannot,  by  human 
testimony,  be  established.  Sensible  men  are  giving  up  try- 
ing to  answer  the  questions  of  origin  and  destiny,  and  are 
paying  more  attention  to  what  happens  between  these  ques- 
tions— that  is  to  say,  to  this  world.  Infidelity  increases  as 
knowledge  increases,  as  fear  dies,  and  as  the  brain  develops. 
After  all,  it  is  a  question  of  intelligence.  Only  cunning 
performs  a  miracle,  only  ignorance  believes  it. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  evolution  and  revealed  relig- 
ion are  compatible — that  is  to  say,  can  a  man  be  an  evolu- 
tionist and  a  Christian? 

Answer.  Evolution  and  Christianity  may  be  compatible, 
provided  you  take  the  ground  that  Christianity  is  only  one 
of  the  links  in  the  chain,  one  of  the  phases  of  civilization. 
But  if  you  mean  by  Christianity  what  is  generally  under- 
stood, of  course  that  and  evolution  are  absolutely  incom- 
patible. Christianity  pretends  to  be  not  only  the  truth,  but, 
so  far  as  religion  is  concerned,  the  whole  truth.  Christian- 
ity pretends  to  give  a  history  of  religion  and  a  prophecy  of 
destiny.  As  a  philosophy,  it  is  an  absolute  failure.  As  a 
history,  it  is  false.  There  is  no  possible  way  by  which 
Darwin  and  Moses  can  be  harmonized.  There  is  an  irre- 
pressible conflict  between  Christianity  and  Science,  and 
both  cannot  long  inhabit  the  same  brain.  You  cannot  har- 
monize evolution  and  the  atonement.  The  survival  of  the 
fittest  does  away  with  original  sin. 

Question.  From  your  knowledge  of  the  religious  tendency 


226  INTERVIEWS. 

in  the  United  States,  how  long  will  orthodox  religion  be 
popular  ? 

A?iswer.  I  do  not  think  that  orthodox  religion  is  popular 
to-day.  The  ministers  dare  not  preach  the  creed  in  all  its 
naked  deformity  and  horror.  They  are  endeavoring  with 
the  vines  of  sentiment  to  cover  up  the  caves  and  dens  in 
which  crawl  the  serpents  of  their  creed.  Very  few  ministers 
care  now  to  speak  of  eternal  pain.  They  leave  out  the  lake 
of  fire  and  brimstone.  They  are  not  fond  of  putting  in  the 
lips  of  Christ  the  loving  words,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed.'* 
The  miracles  are  avoided.  In  short,  what  is  known  as  or- 
thodoxy is  already  unpopular.  Most  ministers  are  endeav- 
oring to  harmonize  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  science  and 
Christianit}^,  and  nothing  is  now  so  welcome  to  the  average 
Christian  as  some  work  tending  to  show  that,  after  all, 
Joshua  was  an  astronomer. 

Question.  What  section  of  the  United  States,  East,  V/est, 
North,  or  South,  is  the  most  advanced  in  liberal  religious 
ideas  ? 

Answer.  That  section  of  the  country  in  which  there  is 
the  most  intelligence  is  the  most  liberal.  That  section  of 
the  country  where  there  is  the  most  ignorance  is  the  most 
prejudiced.  The  least  brain  is  the  most  orthodox.  There 
possibly  is  no  more  progressive  city  in  the  world,  no  more 
liberal,  than  Boston.  Chicago  is  full  of  liberal  people.  So  is 
San  Francisco.  The  brain  of  New  York  is  liberal.  Every 
town,  every  city,  is  liberal  in  the  precise  proportion  that  it 
is  intelligent. 

QtcesHon.  Will  the  religion  of  humanity  be  the  religion  of 
the  future  ? 

Answer.  Yes ;  it  is  the  only  religion  now.  All  other  is 
superstition.  What  they  call  religion  rests  upon  a  supposed 
relation  between  man  and  God.  In  what  they  call  religion 
man  is  asked  to  do  something  for  God.  As  God  wants 
nothing,  and  can  by  no  -Dossibility  accept  anything,  such  a 


INTERVIEWS. 


22^ 


religion  is  simply  superstitioiio  Humanity  is  the  only  pos- 
sible religion.  Whoever  imagines  that  he  can  do  anything 
for  God  is  mistaken.  Whoever  imagines  that  he  can  add 
to  his  happiness  in  the  next  world  by  being  useless  in  this, 
is  also  mistaken.  And  whoever  thinks  that  any  God  cares 
how  he  cuts  his  hair  or  his  clothes,  or  what  he  eats,  or 
whether  he  fasts,  or  rings  a  bell,  or  puts  holy  water  on  his 
icreast,  or  counts  beads,  or  shuts  his  eyes  and  says  words  to 
Jie  clouds,  is  laboring  under  a  great  mistake. 

Question.  A  man  in  the  Swaim  Court  Martial  case  was 
excluded  as  a  witness  because  he  was  an  Atheist.  Do  you 
think  the  law  in  the  next  decade  will  permit  the  affirmative 
oath  > 

Answer.  If  belief  affected  your  eyes,  your  ears,  any  of 
your  senses,  or  your  memory,  then,  of  course,  no  man  ought 
to  be  a  witness  who  had  not  the  proper  belief.  But  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  Atheism  interferes  with  the  sight,  the 
hearing,  or  memory,  why  should  justice  shut  the  door  to 
truth? 

In  most  of  the  States  of  this  Union  I  could  not  give  testi- 
mony. Should  a  man  be  murdered  before  my  eyes  I  could 
not  tell  a  jury  who  did  it.  Christianity  endeavors  to  make 
an  honest  man  an  outlaw.  Christianity  has  such  a  con- 
temptible opinion  of  human  nature  that  it  does  not  believe 
a  man  can  tell  the  truth  unless  frightened  by  a  belief  in  God. 
No  lower  opinion  of  the  human  race  has  ever  been  expressed. 

Quesiiofi.  Do  you  think  that  bigotry  would  persecute  now 
for  religious  opinion's  sake,  if  it  were  not  for  the  law  and 
the  press? 

Answer.  I  think  that  the  church  would  persecute  to-day 
if  it  had  the  power,  just  as  it  persecuted  in  the  past.  We 
are  indebted  for  nearly  all  our  religious  liberty  to  the 
hypocrisy  of  the  church.  The  church  does  not  believe. 
Some  in  the  church  do,  and  if  they  had  the  power,  they 
would  torture  and  burn  as  of  yore.     Give  the  Presbyterian 


228  INTERVIEWS. 

Churcli  the  power,  and  it  would  not  allow  an  Infidel  to  live. 
Give  the  Methodist  Church  the  power  and  the  result  would 
be  the  same.  Give  the  Catholic  Church  the  power — just 
the  same.  No  church  in  the  United  States  would  be  willing 
that  any  other  church  should  have  the  power.  The  only 
men  who  are  to  be  angels  in  the  next  world  are  the  ones 
who  cannot  be  trusted  with  human  liberty  in  this ;  and  the 
men  who  are  destined  to  live  forever  in  hell  are  the  only 
gentlemen  with  whom  human  liberty  is  safe.  Wh}^  should 
Christians  refuse  to  persecute   in  this  world,  when  their 

God  is  going  to  in  the  next  ? — ^<iii  and  Express^  New  York.  January 
12,  1885. 

CLEVELAND  AND  HIS  CABINET. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  Cabi- 
net ? 

A?iswer.  It  is  a  very  good  Cabineto  Some  objections 
have  been  made  to  Mr.  Lamar,  but  I  think  he  is  one  of  the 
very  best.  He  is  a  man  of  ability,  of  unquestioned  integ- 
rity, and  is  well  informed  on  national  affairs.  Ever  since 
he  delivered  his  eulogy  on  the  life  and  services  of  Sumner, 
I  have  had  great  respect  for  Mr.  Lamar.  He  is  far  be- 
yond the  most  of  his  constituents,  and  has  done  much  to 
destroy  the  provincial  prejudices  of  Mississippi.  He  will 
without  doubt  make  an  excellent  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior. The  South  has  no  better  representative  man,  and 
I  believe  his  appointment  will,  in  a  little  while,  be  satis- 
factory to  the  whole  country^  Bayard  stands  high  in 
his  party,  and  will  certainly  do  as  well  as  his  immediate 
predecessor.  Nothing  could  be  better  than  the  change  in 
the  Department  of  Justice.  Garland  is  an  able  lawyer 
has  been  an  influential  Senator  and  will,  in  my  judgment, 
make  an  excellent  Attorney-General.  The  rest  of  the 
Cabinet  I  know  little  about,  but  from  what  I  hear  I  believe 
they  are  men  of  ability  and  that  they  will  discharge  their 
duties  welle     Mr.  Vilas  has  a  great   reputation    ic  W^.s- 


INTERVIEWS.  229 

consin,  and  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  forcible  speakers 
in  the  country. 

Question.  Will  Mr.  Cleveland,  in  your  opinion,  carry  out 
the  civil  service  reform  he  professes  to  favor  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  reason  to  suspect  even  that  he  will 
not.  He  has  promised  to  execute  the  law,  and  the  promise 
is  in  words  that  do  not  admit  of  two  interpretations.  Of 
course  he  is  sincere.  He  knows  that  this  course  will  save 
him  a  world  of  trouble,  and  he  knows  that  it  makes  no 
difference  about  the  politics  of  a  copyist.  All  the  offices  of 
importance  will  in  all  probability  be  filled  by  Democrats. 
The  President  will  not  put  himself  in  the  power  of  his 
opponents.  If  he  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  the  admin- 
istration he  must  be  permitted  to  choose  his  own  assistants. 
This  is  too  plain  to  talk  about.  Let  us  give  Mr.  Cleveland 
a  fair  show — and  let  us  expect  success  instead  of  failure. 
I  admit  that  many  Presidents  have  violated  their  promises. 
There  seems  to  be  something  in  the  atmosphere  of  Wash- 
ington that  breeds  promise  and  prevents  performance,  i 
suppose  it  is  some  kind  of  political  malarial  microbe.  I 
hope  that  some  political  Pasteur  will,  one  of  these  days, 
discover  the  real  disease  so  that  candidates  can  be  vac- 
cinated during  the  campaign.  Until  then,  presidential 
promises  will  be  liable  to  a  discount. 

Question,  Is  the  Republican  party  dead  ? 

Answer,  My  belief  is  that  the  next  President  will  be  a 
Republican,  and  that  both  houses  will  be  Republican  in 
1889.  Mr.  Blaine  was  defeated  by  an  accident — by  the  slip 
of  another  man's  tongue.  But  it  matters  little  what  party 
is  in  power  if  the  Government  is  administered  upon  correct 
principles,  and  if  the  Democracy  adopt  the  views  of  the 
Republicans  and  carry  out  Republican  measures,  it  may  be 
that  they  can  keep  in  power — otherwise — otherwise.  If 
the  Democrats  carry  out  real  Democratic  measures,  then 
their  defeat  is  certain. 


230  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  era  of  good  feeling  betweeis 
the  North  and  the  South  has  set  in  with  the  appointment 
of  ex-rebels  to  the  Cabinet  ? 

Answer.  The  war  is  over.  The  South  failed.  The  Nation 
succeeded.  We  should  stop  talking  about  South  and 
North.  We  are  one  people,  and  whether  we  agree  or  dis- 
agree one  destiny  awaits  us.  We  cannot  divide.  We  must 
live  together.  We  must  trust  each  other.  Confidence  be- 
gets confidence.  The  whole  country  was  responsible  for 
slavery.  Slavery  was  rebellion.  Slavery  is  dead — so  is 
rebellion.  Liberty  has  united  the  country  and  there  is 
more  real  union,  national  sentiment  to-day,  North  and 
South,  than  ever  before. 

Ouestio7i.  It  is  hinted  that  Mr.  Tilden  is  really  the  power 
behind  the  throne.     Do  you  think  so  ? 

Answe7\  I  guess  nobody  has  taken  the  hint.  Of  course 
Mr.  Tilden  has  retired  from  politics.  The  probability  is 
that  many  Democrats  ask  his  advice,  and  some  rely  on  his 
judgment.  He  is  regarded  as  a  piece  of  ancient  wisdom — 
a  phenomenal  persistence  of  the  Jeffersonian  type — the  con- 
necting link  with  the  framers,  founders  and  fathers.  The 
power  behind  the  throne  is  the  power  that  the  present 
occupant  supposes  will  determine  who  the  next  occupant 
shall  be. 

Question,  With  the  introduction  of  the  Democracy  into 
power,  what  radical  changes  will  take  place  in  the  Govern- 
ment, and  what  will  be  the  result  ? 

Answer.  If  the  President  carries  out  his  inaugural  prom- 
ises there  will  be  no  radical  changes,  and  if  he  does  not  there 
will  be  a  very  radical  change  at  the  next  presidential 
election.  The  inaugural  is  a  very  good  Republican  docu- 
ment. There  is  nothing  in  it  calculated  to  excite  alarm. 
There  is  no  dangerous  policy  suggested — no  conceited  vaga- 
ries— nothing  but  a  plain  statement  of  the  situation  and  the 
duty  of  the  Chief  Magistrate  as  understood  by  the  Pres'- 


INTERVIEWS.  231 

dene.  I  think  that  the  inaugural  surprised  the  Democrats 
and  the  Republicans  both,  and  if  the  President  carries  out 
the  program  he  has  laid  down  he  will  surprise  and  pacify 
a  large  majority  of  the  American  people. — Mail  and  Express^ 

New  York,  March  10,  1885. 

RELIGION,  PROHIBITION  AND  GEN.  GRANT. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  prohibition,  and  what  do 
you  think  of  its  success  in  this  State  ? 

Answer.  Few  people  understand  the  restraining  influence 
of  liberty.  Moderation  walks  hand  in  hand  with  freedom. 
I  do  not  mean  the  freedom  springing  from  the  sudden 
rupture  of  restraint.  That  kind  of  freedom  usually  rushes 
to  extremes. 

People  must  be  educated  to  take  care  of  themselves,  and 
this  education  must  commence  in  infancy.  Self-restraint  is 
the  only  kind  that  can  always  be  depended  upon.  Of  course 
intemperance  is^  a  great  evil.  It  causes  immense  suffering — 
clothes  wives  and  children  in  rags,  and  is  accountable  for 
many  crimes,  particularly  those  of  violence.  Laws  to  be  of 
value  must  be  honestly  enforced.  Law^s  that  sleep  had 
better  be  dead.  Lav>'s  to  be  enforced  must  be  honestly 
approved  of  and  believed  in  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
people.  Unpopular  laws  m.ake  hypocrites,  perjurers  and 
official  shirkers  of  duty.  And  if  to  the  violation  of  such 
laws  severe  penalties  attach,  they  are  rarely  enforced.  Laws 
that  create  artificial  crimes  are  the  hardest  to  carry  into 
effect.  You  can  never  convince  a  majority  of  people  that  it 
is  as  bad  to  import  goods  without  paying  the  legal  duty  as 
to  commit  larceny.  Neither  can  you  convince  a  majority  of 
people  that  it  is  a  crime  or  a  sin,  or  even  a  mistake  to  drink 
a  glass  of  wine  or  beer.  Thousands  and  thousands  of 
people  in  this  State  honestly  believe  that  prohibition  is  an 
interference  with  their  natural  rights,  and  they  feel  justified 
in  resorting  to  almost  any  means  to  defeat  the  law. 


232  INTERVIEWS. 

In  this  way  the  people  become  somewhat  demoralized.  It 
is  unfortunate  to  pass  laws  that  remain  unenforced  on 
account  of  their  unpopularity.  People  who  would  on  most 
subjects  swear  to  the  truth  do  not  hesitate  to  testify  falsely 
on  a  prohibition  trial.  In  addition  to  this,  every  known  de- 
vice is  resorted  to,  to  sell  in  spite  of  the  law,  and  when  some 
want  to  sell  and  a  great  many  want  to  buy,  considerable 
business  will  be  done,  while  there  are  fewer  saloons  and  less 
liquor  sold  in  them.  The  liquor  is  poorer  and  the  price  is 
higher.  The  consumer  has  to  pay  for  the  extra  risk. 
More  liquor  finds  its  way  to  homes,  more  men  buy  by  the 
bottle  and  gallon.  In  old  times  nearly  everybody  kept  a 
little  rum  or  whiskey  on  the  sideboard.  The  great  Wash- 
ingtonian  temperance  movement  drove  liquor  out  of  the 
home  and  increased  the  taverns  and  saloons.  Now  we  are 
driving  liquor  back  to  the  homes.  In  my  opinion  there 
is  a  vast  difference  between  distilled  spirits  and  the  lighter 
drinks,  such  as  wine  and  beer.  Wine  is  a  fireside  and 
whiskey  a  conflagration.  These  lighter  drinks  are  not  un- 
healthful  and  do  not,  as  I  believe,  create  a  craving  for 
stronger  beverages.  You  will,  I  think,  find  it  almost 
impossible  to  enforce  the  present  law  against  wine  and  beer. 
I  was  told  yesterday  that  there  are  some  sixty  places  in 
Cedar  Rapids  where  whiskey  is  sold.  It  takes  about  as 
much  ceremony  to  get  a  drink  as  it  does  to  join  the  Masons, 
but  they  seem  to  like  the  ceremony.  People  seem  to  take 
delight  in  outwitting  the  State  when  it  does  not  involve  the 
commission  of  any  natural  offence,  and  when  about  to  be 
caught,  may  not  hesitate  to  swear  falsely  to  the  extent  of 
"don't  remember,"  or  "can't  say  positively,"  or  "can't 
swear  whether  it  was  whiskey  or  not." 

One  great  trouble  in  Iowa  is  that  the  politicians,  or  many 
of  them  who  openly  advocate  prohibition,  are  really  opposed 
to  it.  They  want  to  keep  the  German  vote,  and  they  do  not 
want  to  lose  native  Republicans.     They  feel  a    "divided 


INTERVIEWS.  233 

duty  **  to  ride  both  horses.  This  causes  the  contrast  between 
their  conversation  and  their  speeches,  A  few  years  ago  I 
took  dinner  with  a  gentleman  who  had  been  elected 
Governor  of  one  of  our  States  on  the  Prohibition  ticket. 
We  had  four  kinds  of  wine  during  the  meal,  and  a  pony  of 
brandy  [at  the  end.  Prohibition  will  never  be  a  success 
until  it  prohibits  the  Prohibitionists.  And  yet  I  most  sin- 
cerely hope  and  believe  that  the  time  will  come  when 
drunkenness  shall  have  perished  from  the  earth.  Let  us 
cultivate  the  love  of  home.  Let  husbands  and  wives  and 
children  be  companions.  Let  them  seek  amusements 
together.  If  it  is  a  good  place  for  father  to  go,  it  is  a  good 
place  for  mother  and  the  children.  I  believe  that  a  home 
can  be  made  more  attractive  than  a  saloon.  Let  the  boys 
and  girls  amuse  themselves  at  home — play  'games,  study 
music,  read  interesting  books,  and  let  the  parents  be  their 
playfellows.  The  best  temperance  lecture,  in  the  fewest 
words,  you  will  find  in  Victor  Hugo's  great  novel  "Les 
Miserables."  The  grave  digger  is  asked  to  take  a  drink.  He 
refuses  and  gives  this  reason:  "The  hunger  of  my  family 
is  the  enemy  of  my  thirst." 

Questio7i.  Many  people  wonder  why  you  are  out  of 
politics.     Will  you  give  your  reasons  ? 

Answer.  A  few  years  ago  great  questions  had  to  be  settled. 
The  life  of  the  nation  was  at  stake.  Later  the  liberty  oi 
millions  of  slaves  depended  upon  the  action  of  the  Govern- 
ment. Afterward  reconstruction  and  the  rights  of  citizens 
pressed  themselves  upon  the  people  for  solution.  And 
last,  the  preservation  of  national  honor  and  credit.  These 
questions  did  not  enter  into  the  last  campaign.  They  had 
all  been  settled,  and  properly  settled,  with  the  one  exception 
of  the  duty  of  the  nation  to  protect  the  colored  citizens.  The 
Supreme  Court  settled  that,  at  least  for  a  time,  and  settled 
it  wrong.  But  the  Republican  party  submitted  to  the  civil 
rights  decision,  and  so,  as  between  the  great  parties,  that 


234  INTERVIEWS. 

question  did  not  arise.  This  left  only  two  questions — pro- 
tection and  office.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  Republicans 
were  not  for  our  present  system  of  protection,  and  all 
Democrats  were  not  against  it.  On  that  question  each 
party  was  and  is  divided.  On  the  other  question — office — 
both  parties  were  and  are  in  perfect  harmony.  Nothing 
remains  now  for  the  Democrats  to  do  except  to  give  a 
"working"  definition  of  "offensive  partisanship." 

Q2testio7i.  Do  you  think  that  the  American  people  are 
seeking  after  truth,  or  do  they  want  to  be  amused  ? 

Answer.  We  have  all  kinds.  Thousands  are  earnestly 
seeking  for  the  truth.  They  are  looking  over  the  old 
creeds,  they  are  studying  the  Bible  for  themselves,  they  have 
the  candor  born  of  courage,  they  are  depending  upon  them- 
selves instead  of  on  the  clergy.  They  have  found  out  that 
the  clergy  do  not  know ;  that  their  sources  of  information 
are  not  reliable;  that,  like  the  politician,  many  ministers 
preach  one  way  and  talk  another.  The  doctrine  of  eternal 
pain  has  driven  millions  from  the  church.  People  with 
good  hearts  cannot  get  consolation  out  of  that  cruel  lie. 
The  ministers  themselves  are  getting  ashamed  to  call  that 
doctrine  "the  tidings  of  great  joy."  The  American  people 
are  a  serious  people.  They  want  to  know  the  truth.  They 
feel  that  whatever  the  truth  ma}''  be  they  have  the  courage 
to  hear  it.  The  American  people  also  have  a  sense  of 
humor.  They  like  to  see  old  absurdities  punctured  and 
solemn  stupidity  held  up  to  laughter.  They  are,  on  the  aver- 
age, the  most  intelligent  people  on  the  earth.  They  can 
see  the  point.  Their  wit  is  sharp,  quick  and  logical^ 
Nothing  amuses  them  more  than  to  see  the  mask  pulled 
from  the  face  of  sham.  The  average  American  is  generous, 
intelligent,  level-headed,  manly,  and  good-natured. 

Question.  What,  in  your  judgment,  is  the  source  of  the 
greatest  trouble  among  men? 

Answer,    Superstition.     That  has  caused   more   agony, 


INTERVIEWS.  235 

more  tears,  persecution  and  real  misery  than  all  other 
causes  combined.  The  other  name  for  superstition  is 
ignorance.  When  men  learn  that  all  sin  is  a  mistake,  that 
all  dishonesty  is  a  blunder,  that  even  intelligent  selfishness 
will  protect  the  rights  of  others,  there  will  be  vastly  more 
happiness  in  this  world.  Shakespeare  says  that  "There  is 
no  darkness  but  ignorance."  Sometime  man  will  learn  that 
when  he  steals  from  another,  he  robs  himself — that  the 
way  to  be  happy  is  to  make  others  so,  and  that  it  is  far 
better  to  assist  his  fellow-man  than  to  fast,  say  prayers, 
count  beads  or  build  temples  to  the  Unknown.  Some 
people  tell  us  that  selfishness  is  the  only  sin,  but  selfishness 
grows  in  the  soil  of  ignorance.  After  all,  education  is  the 
great  lever,  and  the  only  one  capable  of  raising  mankind. 
People  ignorant  of  their  own  rights  are  ignorant  of  the 
rights  of  others.     Every  tyrant  is  the  slave  of  ignorance. 

Question.  How  soon  do  you  think  we  would  have  the 
millennium  if  every  person  attended  strictly  to  his  own 
business  ? 

Answer.  Now,  if  every  person  were  intelligent  enough  to 
know  his  own  business — to  know  just  where  his  rights 
ended  and  the  rights  of  others  commenced,  and  then  had 
the  wisdom  and  honesty  to  act  accordingly,  we  should 
have  a  very  happy  world.  Most  people  like  to  control  the 
conduct  of  others.  They  love  to  write  rules,  and  pass  laws 
for  the  benefit  of  their  neighbors,  and  the  neighbors  are 
pretty  busy  at  the  same  business.  People,  as  a  rule,  think 
that  they  know  the  business  of  other  people  better  than 
they  do  their  own.  A  man  watching  others  play  checkers 
or  chess  always  thinks  he  sees  better  moves  than  the 
players  make.  When  all  people  attend  to  their  own  busi- 
ness they  will  know  that  a  part  of  their  own  business  is  to 
increase  the  happiness  of  others. 

Question.  What  is  causing  the  development  of  this 
country  ? 


236  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  Education,  the  free  exchange  of  ideas,  inven- 
tions by  which  the  forces  of  nature  become  our  servants, 
intellectual  hospitality,  a  willingness  to  hear  the  other 
side,  the  richness  of  our  soil,  the  extent  of  our  territory, 
the  diversity  of  climate  and  production,  our  system  of 
government,  the  free  discussion  of  political  questions,  our 
social  freedom,  and  above  all,  the  fact  that  labor  is  honor- 
able. 

Questio7i.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  religious  tendency 
of  the  people  of  this  country  ? 

A7iswer.  Using  the  word  religion  in  its  highest  and  best 
sense,  the  people  are  becoming  more  religious.  We  are  far 
more  religious — using  the  word  in  its  best  sense — than 
when  we  believed  in  human  slavery,  but  we  are  not  as 
orthodox  as  we  were  then.  We  have  more  principle  and 
less  piety.  We  care  more  for  the  right  and  less  for  the 
creed.  The  old  orthodox  dogmas  are  mouldy.  You  will 
find  moss  on  their  backs.  They  are  only  brought  out 
when  a  new  candidate  for  the  ministry  is  to  be  examined. 
Only  a  little  while  ago  in  New  York  a  candidate  for  the 
Presbyterian  pulpit  was  examined  and  the  following  is  a 
part  of  the  examination  : 

Question.  "Do  you  believe  in  eternal  punishment,  as  set  forth  in 
the  confession  of  faith  ?  " 

Answer.  (With  some  hesitation)     "Yes,  I  do." 

Question.  "  Have  you  preached  on  that  subject  lately?" 

Anszver.  *'  No.  I  prepared  a  sermon  on  hell,  in  which  I  took  the 
ground  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be  endless,  and  have 
it  with  me." 

Question.  **  Did  you  deliver  it  ?  " 

Answer.  "  No.  I  thought  that  my  congregation  would  not  care  to 
hear  it.  The  doctrine  is  rather  unpopular  where  I  have  been  preach- 
ing, and  I  was  afraid  I  might  do  harm,  so  I  have  not  delivered  it  yet." 

Question.  "  But  you  believe  in  eternal  damnation,  do  you  not?  " 

Answer.  *'  O  yes,  with  all  my  hedit," 

He  was  admitted,  and  the  admission  proves  the  dishon- 
esty of  the  examiners  and  the  examined.     The  new  version 


INTERVIEWS.  237 

of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  has  done  much  to 
weaken  confidence  in  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.  It  has 
occurred  to  a  good  many  that  if  God  took  the  pains  to 
inspire  men  to  write  the  Bible,  he  ought  to  have  inspired 
others  to  translate  it  correctly.  The  general  tendency  to- 
day is  toward  science,  toward  naturalism,  toward  what  is 
called  Infidelit}^  but  is  in  fact  fidelity.  Men  are  in  a  tran- 
sition state,  and  the  people,  on  the  average,  have  more  real 
good,  sound  sense  to-day  than  ever  before.  The  church  is 
losing  its  power  for  evil.  The  old  chains  are  wearing  out, 
and  new  ones  are  not  being  made.  The  tendency  is 
toward  intellectual  freedom,  and  that  means  the  final 
destruction  of  the  orthodox  bastile. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  General  Grant  as  he 
stands  before  the  people  to-day. 

Answe7\  I  have  always  regarded  General  Grant  as  the 
greatest  soldier  this  continent  has  produced.  He  is  to-day 
the  most  distinguished  son  of  the  Republic.  The  people 
have  the  greatest  confidence  in  his  ability,  his  patriotism 
and  his  integrity.  The  financial  disaster  impoverished 
General  Grant,  but  did  not  stain  the  reputation  of  the  grand 
soldier  who  led  to  many  victories  the  greatest  army  thafr^ 
ever  fought  for  the  liberties  of  man. — lowa  state  Register,  ^iz.-^-^, 

1S85. 

HELL  OR  SHEOL  AND  OTHER  SUBJECTS, 
Question.  Colonel,  have  you  read  the  revised  Testament  ? 
Answer.  Yes,  but  I  don't  believe  the  work  has  been 
fairly  done.  The  clergy  are  not  going  to  scrape  the  butter 
off  their  own  bread.  The  clergy  are  offensive  partisans, 
and  those  of  each  denomination  will  interpret  the  Scrip- 
tures their  way.  No  Baptist  minister  would  countenance 
a  "  Revision  "  that  favored  sprinkling,  and  no  Catholic 
priest  would  admit  that  any  version  would  be  correct  that 
destroyed  the  dogma  of  the  "  real  presence.  "  So  I  might 
go  through  all  the  denominations 


238  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Why  was  the  word  sheol  introduced  in  place 
of  hell,  and  how  do  you  like  the  substitute  ? 

Answer.  The  civilized  world  has  outgrown  the  vulgar 
and  brutal  hell  of  their  fathers  and  founders  of  the  churches. 
The  clergy  are  ashamed  to  preach  about  sulphurous  flames 
and  undying  worms.  The  imagination  of  the  world  has 
been  developed,  the  heart  has  grown  tender,  and  the  old 
dogma  of  eternal  pain  shocks  all  civilized  people.  It  is 
becoming  disgraceful  either  to  preach  or  believe  in  such  a 
beastly  lie.  The  clergy  are  beginning  to  think  that  it  is 
hardly  manly  to  frighten  children  with  a  detected  false- 
hood. Sheol  is  a  great  relief.  It  is  not  so  hot  as  the  old 
place.  The  nights  are  comfortable,  and  the  society  is  quite 
refined.  The  worms  are  dead,  and  the  air  reasonably  free 
from  noxious  vapors.  It  is  a  much  worse  word  to  hold  a 
revival  with,  but  much  better  for  every  day  use.  It  will 
hardly  take  the  place  of  the  old  word  when  people  step  on 
tacks,  put  up  stoves,  or  sit  on  pins ;  but  for  use  at  church 
fairs  and  mite  societies  it  will  do  about  as  well.  We  do 
not  need  revision ;  excision  is  what  we  want.  The  bar- 
barism should  be  taken  out  of  the  Bible.  Passages  up- 
holding polygamy,  wars  of  extermination,  slavery,  and 
religious  persecution  should  not  be  attributed  to  a  perfect 
God.  The  good  that  is  in  the  Bible  will  be  saved  for  man, 
and  man  will  be  saved  from  the  evil  that  is  in  that  book. 
Why  should  we  worship  in  God  what  we  detest  in 
man? 

Question.  Do  3^ou  think  the  use  of  the  word  sheol  will 
make  any  difference  to  the  preachers  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  it  will  make  no  difference  with  Talmage. 
He  will  make  sheol  just  as  hot  and  smoky  and  uncomfort- 
able as  hell,  but  the  congregation  will  laugh  instead  of 
tremble.  The  old  shudder  has  gone.  Beecher  had  demol- 
ished hell  before  sheol  was  adopted.  According  to  his 
doctrine  of  evolution   hell  has  been  slowly   growing  cool. 


INTERVIEWS.  239 

The  cindered  souls  do  not  even  perspire.  Slieol  is  nothing 
to  Mr.  Beecher  but  a  new  name  for  an  old  mistake.  As  for 
the  effect  it  will  have  on  Heber  Newton,  I  cannot  tell, 
neither  can  he,  until  he  asks  his  bishop.  There  are  people 
who  believe  in  witches  and  madstones  and  fiat  money, 
and  centuries  hence  it  may  be  that  people  will  exist  who 
will  believe  as  firmly  in  hell  as  Dr.  Shedd  does  now. 

Question.  What  about  Beecher's  sermons  on  "Evolu- 
tion"? 

Answer,  Beecher's  sermons  on  ''Evolution"  will  do  good. 
Millions  of  people  believe  that  Mr.  Beecher  knows  at  least 
as  much  as  the  other  preachers,  and  if  he  regards  the 
atonement  as  a  dogma  with  a  mistake  for  a  foundation, 
they  may  conclude  that  the  whole  system  is  a  mistake. 
But  whether  Mr.  Beecher  is  mistaken  or  not,  people  know 
that  honesty  is  a  good  thing,  that  gratitude  is  a  virtue,  that 
industry  supports  the  world,  and  that  whatever  they  be- 
lieve about  religion  thej^  are  bound  by  every  conceivable 
obligation  to  be  just  and  generous.  Mr.  Beecher  can  no 
more  succeed  in  reconciling  science  and  religion,  than  he 
could  in  convincing  the  w^orld  that  triangles  and  circles 
are  exactly  the  same.  There  is  the  same  relation  between 
science  and  religion  that  there  is  between  astronomy  and 
astrology,  between  alchemy  and  chemistry,  between  ortho- 
doxy and  common  sense. 

Question.  Have  3'ou  read  Miss  Cleveland's  book  ?  She 
condemns  George  Eliot's  poetry  on  the  ground  that  it  has 
no  faith  in  it,  nothing  beyond.  Do  you  imagine  she 
would  condemn  Burns  or  Shelley  for  that  reason  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  read  Miss  Cleveland's  book;  but, 
if  the  author  condemns  the  poetry  of  George  Eliot,  she  has 
made  a  mistake.  There  is  no  poem  in  our  language  more 
beautiful  than  "  The  Lovers, "  and  none  loftier  or  purer 
than  " The  Choir  Invisible."  There  is  no  poetry  in  the 
"beyond."     The  poetry  is  here — here  in  this  world,  where 


240  INTERVIEWS. 

love  is  in  the  heart.  The  poetry  of  the  beyond  is  too  far 
away,  a  little  too  general.  Shelley's  "  Skylark"  was  in  our 
sky,  the  daisy  of  Burns  grew  on  our  ground,  and  between 
that  lark  and  that  daisy  is  room   for  all  the  real  poetry  of 

the  earth. — Evenmg  Record^^o%\xm.,  Mass.,  1885. 

INTERVIEWING,  POLITICS  AND  SPIRITUALISM. 

Question,  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  peculiar  institu- 
tion of  American  journalism  known  as  interviewing  ? 

A7iswer,  If  the  interviewers  are  fair,  if  they  know  how 
to  ask  questions  of  a  public  nature,  if  they  remember  what 
is  said,  or  wTite  it  at  the  time,  and  if  the  interviewed 
knows  enough  to  answer  questions  in  a  w^ay  to  amuse  or 
instruct  the  public,  then  interviewing  is  a  blessing.  But 
if  the  representative  of  the  press  asks  questions,  either 
impudent  or  unimportant,  and  the  answers  are  like  the 
questions,  then  the  institution  is  a  failure.  When  the 
journalist  fails  to  see  the  man  he  wishes  to  interview,  or 
when  the  man  refuses  to  be  interviewed,  and  thereupon  the 
aforesaid  journalist  wTites  up  an  i^terview^  doing  the  talk- 
ing for  both  sides,  the  institution  is  a  success.  Such 
interviews  are  always  interesting,  and,  as  a  rule,  the  ques- 
tions are  to  the  point  and  the  answers  perfectly  responsive. 
There  is  probably  a  little  too  much  interviewing,  and  too 
many  persons  are  asked  questions  upon  subjects  about 
which  they  know  nothing.  Mr.  Smith  makes  some  money 
in  stocks  or  pork,  visits  London,  and  remains  in  that  city 
for  several  weeks.  On  his  return  he  is  interviewed  as  to 
the  institutions,  laws  and  customs  of  the  British  Empire. 
Of  course  such  an  interview  is  exceedingly  instructive. 
Lord  Affanaff  lands  at  the  dock  in  North  River,  is  driven 
to  a  hotel  in  a  closed  carriage,  is  interviewed  a  few 
minutes  after  by  a  representative  of  the  Herald  as  to  his 
view  of  the  great  Republic  based  upon  w^hat  he  has  seen. 
Such   an   interview   is   also  instructive.     Interviews  with 


INTERVIEWS.  241 

candidates  as  to  their  chances  of  election  is  another  favorite 
way  of  finding  out  their  honest  opinion,  but  people  who 
rely  on  those  interviews  generally  lose  their  bets.  The 
most  interesting  interviews  are  generally  denied.  I  have 
been  expecting  to  see  an  interview  with  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Leonard  on  the  medicinal  properties  of  champagne  and 
toast,  or  the  relation  between  old  ale  and  modern  theology, 
and  as  to  whether  prohibition  prohibits  the  Prohibitionists. 

Question.  Have  you  ever  been  misrepresented  in  inter- 
views ? 

Answer.  Several  times.  As  a  general  rule,  the  clergy 
have  selected  these  misrepresentations  when  answering  me. 
I  never  blamed  them,  because  it  is  much  easier  to  answer 
something  that  I  did  not  say.  Most  reporters  try  to  give 
my  real  words,  but  it  is  difiicult  to  remember.  They  try 
to  give  the  substance,  and  in  that  way  change  or  destroy 
the  sense.  You  remember  the  Frenchman  who  translated 
Shakespeare's  great  line  in  Macbeth — *'  Out,  brief  candle  !  " 
— into  **  Short  candle,  go  out!"  Another  man,  trying  to 
give  the  last  words  of  Webster — "  I  still  live  " — said  "  I 
aint  dead  yit."  So  that  when  they  try  to  do  their  best 
they  often  make  mistakes.  Now  and  then  interviews 
appear  not  one  word  of  which  I  ever  said,  and  sometimes 
when  I  really  had  an  interview,  another  one  has  appeared. 
But  generally  the  reporters  treat  me  well,  and  most  of  them 
succeed  in  telling  about  what  I  said.  Personally  I  have 
no  cause  for  complaint. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  administration  of 
President  Cleveland? 

Answer.  I  know  but  very  little  about  it.  I  suppose  that 
he  is  doing  the  best  he  can.  He  appears  to  be  carrying 
out  in  good  faith  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  platform 
on  which  he  was  elected.  He  is  having  a  hard  road  to 
travel.  To  satisfy  an  old  Democrat  and  a  new  mugwump 
is  a  difficult  job.     Cleveland  appears  to  be  the  owner  of 


242  INTERVIEWS. 

himself — appears  to  be  a  man  of  great  firmness  and  force 
of  character.  The  best  thing  that  I  have  heard  about  him 
is  that  he  went  fishing  on  Sunday.  We  have  had  so  much 
mock  morality,  dude  deportment  and  hypocritical  respecta- 
bility in  public  office,  that  a  man  with  courage  enough  to 
enjoy  himself  on  Sunday  is  a  refreshing  and  healthy 
example.  All  things  considered,  I  do  not  see  but  that 
Cleveland  is  doing  well  enough.  The  attitude  of  the 
administration  toward  the  colored  people  is  manly  and 
fair  so  far  as  I  can  see. 

Question.  Are  you  still  a  Republican  in  political  belief  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  that  this  is  a  Nation.  I  believe  in  the 
equality  of  all  men  before  the  law,  irrespective  of  race, 
religion  or  color.  I  believe  that  there  should  be  a  dollar's 
worth  of  silver  in  a  silver  dollar.  I  believe  in  a  free  ballot 
and  a  fair  count.  I  believe  in  protecting  those  industries 
and  those  only,  that  need  protection.  I  believe  in  unre- 
stricted coinage  of  gold  and  silver.  I  believe  in  the  rights 
of  the  State,  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  and  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Nation.  I  believe  in  good  times,  good  health,  good 
crops,  good  prices,  good  wages,  good  food,  good  clothes  and 
in  the  absolute  and  unqualified  liberty  of  thought.  If  such 
belief  makes  a  Republican,  then  that  is  what  I  am. 

Question.  Do  you  approve  of  John  Sherman's  policy  in 
the  present  campaign  with  reference  to  the  bloody  shirt, 
which  reports  of  his  speeches  show  that  he  is  waving  ? 

A7iswer.  I  have  not  read  Senator  Sherman's  speech.  It 
seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  better  feeling  between  the  North 
and  South  than  ever  before — better  than  at  any  time  since 
the  Revolutionary  war.  I  believe  in  cultivating  that  feel- 
ing, and  in  doing  and  saying  what  we  can  to  contribute  to 
its  growth.  We  have  hated  long  enough  and  fought 
enough.  The  colored  people  never  have  been  well  treated, 
but  they  are  being  better  treated  now  than  ever  before.  It 
takes  a  long  time  to  do  away  with  prejudices   that  were 


INTERVIEWS.  243 

based  upon  religion  and  rascality — that  is  to  say,  inspira- 
tion and  interest.  We  must  remember  that  slavery  was  the 
crime  of  the  whole  country.  Now, if  Senator  Sherman  has 
made  a  speech  calculated  to  excite  the  hatreds  and  preju- 
dices of  the  North  and  South,  I  think  that  he  has  made  a 
mistake.  I  do  not  say  that  he  has  made  such  a  speech, 
because  I  have  not  read  it.  The  war  is  over — it  ended  at 
Appomattox.  Let  us  hope  that  the  bitterness  born  of  the 
conflict  died  out  forever  at  Riverside.  The  people  are 
tired  almost  to  death  of  the  old  speeches.  They  have  been 
worn  out  and  patched,  and  even  the  patches  are  threadbare. 
The  Supreme  Court  decided  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  to  be 
unconstitutional,  and  the  Republican  party  submitted.  I 
regarded  the  decision  as  monstrous,  but  the  Republican 
party  when  in  power  said  nothing  and  did  nothing.  I 
most  sincerely  hope  that  the  Democratic  party  will  protect 
the  colored  people  at  least  as  well  as  we  did  when  we  were 
in  power.  But  I  am  out  of  politics  and  intend  to  keep 
politics  out  of  me. 

Question.  We  have  been  having  the  periodical  revival  ol 
interest  in  Spiritualism.  What  do  you  think  of  "Spiritual- 
ism,"  as  it  is  popularly  termed? 

Answer.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  supernatural.  One  who 
does  not  believe  in  gods  would  hardly  believe  in  ghosts.  I 
am  not  a  believer  in  any  of  the  "  wonders  "  and  **  miracles  " 
whether  ancient  or  modern.  There  may  be  spirits,  but  I 
do  not  believe  there  are.  They  may  communicate  with 
some  people,  but  thus  far  they  have  been  successful  in 
avoiding  me.  Of  course,  I  know  nothing  for  certain  on 
the  subject.  I  know  a  great  many  excellent  people  who 
are  thoroughly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  Spiritualism. 
Christians  laugh  at  the  "miracles"  to-day,  attested  by 
folks  they  know,  but  believe  the  miracles  of  long  ago, 
attested  by  folks  that  they  did  not  know.  This  is  one  of 
the  contradictions  in  human  nature.     Most  people  are  wilU 


244  INTERVIEWSc 

ing  to  believe  that  wonderful  things  happened  long  ago 
and  will  happen  again  in  the  far  future ;  with  them  the 
present   is  the  only  time  in  which   nature  behaves  herself  \ 
with  becoming  sobriety.  / 

In  old  times  nature  did  all  kinds  of  juggling  tricks,  and  ; 
after  a  long  while  will  do  some  more,  but  now  she  is  attend- 
ing strictly  to  business,  depending  upon  cause  and  effect. 

Question.  Who,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  greatest  leader  of 
the  "  opposition  "  yclept  the  Christian  religion  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  Mr.  Beecher  is  the  greatest  man 
in  the  pulpit,  but  he  thinks  more  of  Darwin  than  he  does 
of  David  and  has  an  idea  that  the  Old  Testament  is  just  a 
little  too  old.  He  has  put  evolution  in  the  place  of  the 
atonement — has  thrown  away  >  the  Garden  of  Eden,  snake, 
apples  and  all,  and  is  endeavoring  to  save  enough  of  the 
orthodox  wreck  to  make  a  raft.  I  know  of  no  other  genius 
in  the  pulpit.  There  are  plenty  of  theological  doctors  and 
bishops  and  all  kinds  of  titled  humility  in  the  sacred  pro- 
fession, but  men  of  genius  are  scarce.  All  the  ministers, 
except  Messrs.  Moody  and  Jones,  are  busy  explaining 
away  the  contradictions  between  inspiration  and  demon- 
stration. 

Question.  What  books  would  you  recommend  for  the 
perusal  of  a  young  man  of  limited  time  and  culture  with 
reference  to  helping  him  in  the  development  of  intellect  and 
good  character  ? 

Answer.  The  works  of  Darwin,  Ernst  Haeckel,  Draper's 
"Intellectual  Development  of  Europe,"  Buckle's  "History 
of  Civilization  in  England,"  Lecky's  "  Histor}^  of  European 
Morals,"  Voltaire's  "Philosophical  Dictionary,"  Biichner's 
"Force  and  Matter,"  "The  History  of  the  Christian  Relig- 
ion,"  by  Waite;  Paine's  "Age  of  Reason,"  D'Holbach's 
"  System  of  Nature,"  and,  above  all,  Shakespeare.  Do  not 
forget  Burns,  Shelley,  Dickens  and  Hugo. 

Question.  Will  you  lecture  the  coming  winter? 


INTERVIEWSo  245 

Answer.  Yes,  about  the  same  as  usual.  Woe  is  me  if  I 
preach  not  my  gospel. 

Question.  Have  you  been  invited  to  lecture  in  Europe  ? 
If  so  do  you  intend  to  accept  the  " call" ? 

Answer.  Yes,  often.  The  probability  is  that  I  shall  go 
to  England  and  Australia.  I  have  not  only  had  invitations 
but  most  excellent  offers  from  both  countries.  There  is, 
however,  plenty  to  do  here.  This  is  the  best  country  in 
the  world  and  our  people  are  eager  to  hear  the  other 
side. 

The  old  kind  of  preaching  is  getting  superannuated.  It 
lags  superfluous  in  the  pulpit.  Our  people  are  outgrowing 
the  cruelties  and  absurdities  of  the  ancient  Jews.  The  idea 
of  hell  has  become  shocking  and  vulgar.  Eternal  punish- 
ment is  eternal  injustice.  It  is  infinitely  infamous.  Most 
rninisters  are  ashamed  to  preach  the  doctrine,  and  the 
congregations  are  ashamed  to  hear  it  preached.     It  is  the 

essence   of  savagery. — -Plain  Dealer^  Cleveland,  Ohio,  September  5,  1885. 

MY  BELIEF. 

Question.  It  is  said  that  in  the  past  four  or  five  years 
you  have  changed  or  modified  your  views  upon  the  subject 
of  religion  ;  is  this  so  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  so.  The  only  change,  if  that  can  be  call- 
ed a  change,  is,  that  I  am  more  perfectly  satisfied  that  I  am 
right — satisfied  that  what  is  called  orthodox  religion  is  a 
simple  fabrication  of  mistaken  men ;  satisfied  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  an  inspired  book  and  never  will  be  ;  satis- 
fied that  a  miracle  never  was  and  never  will  be  performed  ; 
satisfied  that  no  human  being  knows  whether  there  is  a 
God  or  not,  whether  there  is  another  life  or  not ;  satisfied 
that  the  scheme  of  atonement  is  a  mistake,  that  the  inno- 
cent cannot,  by  suffering  for  the  guilty,  atone  for  the  guilt  ; 
satisfied  that  the  doctrine  that  salvation  depends  on  belief, 
is  cruel  and  absurd ;  satisfied  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal 


246  INTERVIEWS. 

punishment  is  infamously  false  ;  satisfied  that  superstition 
is  of  no  use  to  the  human  race ;  satisfied  that  humanity  is 
the  only  true  and  real  religion. 

No,  I  have  not  modified  my  views.  I  detect  new  absurdi- 
ties every  day  in  the  popular  belief.  Every  day  the  whole 
thing  becomes  more  and  more  absurd.  Of  course  there  are 
hundreds  and  thousands  of  most  excellent  people  who  be- 
lieve in  orthodox  religion  ;  people  for  whose  good  qualities 
I  have  the  greatest  respect ;  people  v;ho  have  good  ideas 
on  most  other  subjects;  good  citizens,  good  fathers,  hus- 
bands, wives  and  children — good  in  spite  of  their  religion. 
I  do  not  attack  people.  I  attack  the  mistakes  of  people. 
Orthodoxy  is  getting  weaker  every  day. 

Qiiestion.  Do  you  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme 
Being  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  believe  in  any  Supreme  personality 
or  in  any  Supreme  Being  who  made  the  universe  and  gov- 
erns nature.  I  do  not  say  that  there  is  no  such  Being — all 
I  say  is  that  I  do  not  believe  that  such  a  Being  exists.  I 
know  nothing  on  the  subject,  except  that  I  know  that  I  do 
not  know  and  that  nobody  else  knows.  But  if  there  be 
such  a  Being,  he  certainly  never  wrote  the  Old  Testament. 
You  will  understand  my  position.  I  do  not  say  that  a  Su- 
preme Being  does  not  exist,  but  I  do  say  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve such  a  Being  exists.  The  universe — embracing  all 
that  is — all  atoms,  all  stars,  each  grain  of  sand  and  all  the 
constellations,  each  thought  and  dream  of  animal  and  man, 
all  matter  and  all  force,  all  doubt  and  all  belief,  all  virtue  and 
all  crime,  all  joy  and  all  pain,  all  growth  and  all  decay — is 
all  there  is.  It  does  not  act  because  it  is  moved  from  without. 
It  acts  from  within.  It  is  actor  and  subject,  means  and 
end. 

It  is  infinite ;  the  infinite  could  not  have  been  created. 
It  is  indestructible  and  that  which  cannot  be  destroyed  was 
not  created.     I  am  a  Pantheist. 


INTERVIEWS.  247 

Question.  Don't  you  think  the  belief  of  the  Agnostic  is 
more  satisfactory  to  the  believer  than  that  of  the  Atheist  ? 

Ajiswer.  There  is  no  difference.  The  Agnostic  is  an  Athe- 
ist. The  Atheist  is  an  Agnostic.  The  Agnostic  says:  "I  do 
not  know,  but  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  God."  The  Atheist 
says  the  same.  The  orthodox  Christian  says  he  knows  there 
is  a  God ;  but  we  know  that  he  does  not  know.  He  sim- 
ply believes.  He  cannot  know.  The  Atheist  cannot  know 
that  God  does  not  exist. 

Question.  Haven't  you  just  the  faintest  glimmer  of  a  hope 
that  in  some  future  state  you  will  meet  and  be  reunited  to 
those  who  are  dear  to  you  in  this  ? 

Answer.  I  have  no  particular  desire  to  be  destroyed.  I 
am  willing  to  go  to  heaven  if  there  be  such  a  place,  and  en- 
joy myself  for  ever  and  ever.  It  would  give  me  infinite 
satisfaction  to  know  that  all  mankind  are  to  be  happy  for- 
ever. Infidels  love  their  wives  and  children  as  well  as 
Christians  do  theirs.  I  have  never  said  a  word  against 
heaven — never  said  a  word  against  the  idea  of  immortality. 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  said  all  I  could  truthfully  say  in 
favor  of  the  idea  that  we  shall  live  again.  I  most  sincerely 
hope  that  there  is  another  world,  better  than  this,  where 
all  the  broken  ties  of  love  will  be  united.  It  is  the  other 
place  I  have  been  fighting.  Better  that  all  of  us  should 
sleep  the  sleep  of  death  forever  than  that  some  should 
suffer  pain  forever.  If  in  order  to  have  a  heaven  there  must 
be  a  hell,  then  I  saj^  away  with  them  both.  My  doctrine 
puts  the  bow  of  hope  over  every  grave  ;  my  doctrine  takes 
from  every  mother's  heart  the  fear  of  hell.  No  good  man 
would  enjoy  himself  in  heaven  with  his  friends  in  hell. 
No  good  God  could  enjoy  himself  in  heaven  with  millions 
of  his  poor,  helpless  mistakes  in  hell.  The  orthodox  idea 
of  heaven — with  God  an  eternal  inquisitor,  a  few  heartless 
angels  and  some  redeemed  orthodox,  all  enjoying  them- 
selves, while  the  vast  multitude  will  weep  in  the  rayless 


24^  INTERVIEWS. 

gloom  of  God's  eternal  dungeon — is  not  calculated  to  make 
man  good  or  happ}^  I  am  doing  what  I  can  to  civilize  the 
churches,  humanize  the  preachers  and  get  the  fear  of  hell 
out  of  the  human  heart.     In  this  business  I  am  meeting 

with  great  success. — Philadelphia  Times,  September  25,  1885. 

SOME  LIVE  TOPICS. 

Question.  Shall  you  attend  the  Albany  Freethought  Con- 
vention ? 

Answer.  I  have  agreed  to  be  present  not  only,  but  to 
address  the  convention,  on  Sunday,  the  13th  of  September. 
I  am  greatly  gratified  to  know  that  the  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion of  intellectual  liberty  is  growing  from  year  to  year. 
Everywhere  I  go  it  seems  to  be  the  topic  of  conversation. 
No  matter  upon  what  subject  people  begin  to  talk,  in  a  little 
while  the  discussion  takes  a  religious  turn,  and  people  who 
a  few  moments  before  had  not  the  slightest  thought  of  say- 
ing a  word  about  the  churches,  or  about  the  Bible,  are  giv- 
ing their  opinions  in  full.  I  hear  discussions  of  this  kind 
in  all  the  public  conveyances,  at  the  hotels,  on  the  piazzas 
at  the  seaside — and  they  are  not  discussions  in  which  I  take 
any  part,  because  I  rarely  say  anything  upon  these  ques- 
tions except  in  public,  unless  I  am  directly  addressed. 

There  is  a  general  feeling  that  the  church  has  ruled  the 
world  long  enough.  People  are  beginning  to  see  that  no 
amount  of  eloquence,  or  faith,  or  erudition,  or  authority, 
can  make  the  records  of  barbarism  satisfactory  to  the  heart 
and  brain  of  this  centuryo  They  have  also  found  that  a 
falsehood  in  Hebrew  is  no  more  credible  than  in  plain  Eng- 
lish. People  at  last  are  beginning  to  be  satisfied  that  cruel 
laws  were  never  good  laws,  no  matter  whether  inspired  or 
uninspired.  The  Christian  religion,  like  every  other  relig- 
ion depending  upon  inspired  writings,  is  wTecked  upon  the 
facts  of  nature^     So  long  as  inspired  writers  confined  them- 


INTERVIEWS.  249 

selves  to  the  supernatural  world;  so  long  as  they  talked 
about  angels  and  Gods  and  heavens  and  hells ;  so  long  as 
they  described  only  things  that  man  has  never  seen,  and 
never  will  see,  they  were  safe,  not  from  contradiction,  but 
from  demonstration.  But  these  writings  had  to  have  a 
foundation,  even  for  their  falsehoods,  and  that  foundation 
was  in  Nature,  The  foundation  had  to  be  something  about 
which  somebody  knew  something,  or  supposed  they  knew 
something.  They  told  something  about  this  world  that 
agreed  with  the  then  general  opinion.  Had  these  inspired 
writers  told  the  truth  about  Nature — had  they  said  that  the 
world  revolved  on  its  axis,  and  made  a  circuit  about  the  sun 
— they  could  have  gained  no  credence  for  their  statements 
about  other  worlds.  They  were  forced  to  agree  with  their 
contemporaries  about  this  world,  and  there  is  where  they 
made  the  fundamental  mistake.  Having  grown  in  knowl- 
edge, the  world  has  discovered  that  these  inspired  men  knew 
nothing  about  this  earth ;  that  the  inspired  books  are  filled 
with  mistakes — not  only  mistakes  that  we  can  contradict, 
but  mistakes  that  we  can  demonstrate  to  be  mistakes.  Had 
they  told  the  truth  in  their  day,  about  this  earth,  they 
would  not  have  been  believed  about  other  worlds,  because 
their  contemporaries  would  have  used  their  own  knowledge 
about  this  world  to  test  the  knowledge  of  these  inspired 
men.  We  pursue  the  same  course ;  and  what  we  know  about 
this  world  we  use  as  the  standard,  and  by  that  standard  we 
have  found  that  the  inspired  men  knew  nothing  about 
Nature  as  it  is.  Finding  that  they  were  mistaken  about 
this  world,  we  have  no  confidence  in  what  they  have  said 
about  another.  Every  religion  has  had  its  philosophy  about 
this  world,  and  every  one  has  been  mistaken.  As  education 
becomes  general,  as  scientific  modes  are  adopted,  this  will 
become  clearer  and  clearer,  until  "ignorant  as  inspiration" 
will  be  a  comparison. 

Question.  Have  you  seen  the  memorial  to  the  New  York 


250  INTERVIEWS. 

Legislature,  to  be  presented  this  winter,  asking  for  the  re- 
peal of  such  laws  as  practically  unite  church  and  state? 

Answer.  I  have  seen  a  memorial  asking  that  church  prop- 
erty be  taxed  like  other  property;  that  no  more  money 
should  be  appropriated  from  the  public  treasury  for  the  sup- 
port of  institutions  managed  by  and  in  the  interest  of  secta- 
rian denominations;  for  the  repeal  of  all  laws  compelling 
the  observance  of  Sunday  as  a  religious  day.  Such  memo- 
rials ought  to  be  addressed  to  the  Legislature  of  all  the  States. 
The  money  of  the  public  should  only  be  used  for  the  benefit 
of  the  public.  Public  money  should  not  be  used  for  what  a 
few  gentlemen  think  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  public.  Per- 
sonally, I  think  it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  to 
have  Infidel  or  scientific — which  is  the  same  thing — lectures 
delivered  in  every  town,  in  every  State,  on  every  Sunday ; 
but  knowing  that  a  great  many  men  disagree  with  me  on 
this  point,  I  do  not  claim  that  such  lectures  ought  to  be  paid 
for  with  public  money.  The  Methodist  Church  ought  not 
to  be  sustained  by  taxation,  nor  the  Catholic,  nor  any  other 
church.  To  relieve  their  property  from  taxation  is  to  ap- 
propriate money,  to  the  extent  of  that  tax,  for  the  support 
of  that  church.  Whenever  a  burden  is  lifted  from  one  piece 
of  property,  it  is  distributed  over  the  rest  of  the  property  of 
the  State,  and  to  release  one  kind  of  property  is  to  increase 
the  tax  on  all  other  kinds. 

There  was  a  time  when  people  really  supposed  that 
churches  were  saving  souls  f  1  om  the  eternal  wrath  of  a  God 
of  infinite  love.  Being  engaged  in  such  a  philanthropic 
work,  and  at  that  time  nobody  having  the  courage  to  deny 
it — the  church  being  all-powerful — all  other  property  was 
taxed  to  support  the  church;  but  now  the  more  civilized 
part  of  the  community,  being  satisfied  that  a  God  of  infinite 
love  will  not  be  eternally  unjust,  feel  as  though  the  church 
should  support  herself.  To  exempt  the  church  from  taxa- 
tion is  to  pay  a  part  of  the  priest's  salary.     The  Catholic 


INTERVIEWS.  251 

now  objects  to  being  taxed  to  support  a  school  in  which  his 
religion  is  not  taught.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  the  school 
that  says  nothing  on  the  subject  of  religion.  He  insists  that 
it  is  an  outrage  to  tax  him  to  support  a  school  where  the 
teacher  simply  teaches  what  he  knows.  And  yet  this  same 
Catholic  wants  his  church  exempted  from  taxation,  and  the 
tax  of  an  Atheist  or  of  a  Jew  increased,  when  he  teaches  in 
his  untaxed  church  that  the  Atheist  and  Jew  will  both  be 
eternally  damned !  Is  it  possible  for  impudence  to  go  fur- 
ther? 

I  insist  that  no  religion  should  be  taught  in  any  school 
supported  by  public  money ;  and  by  religion  I  mean  super- 
stition. Only  that  should  be  taught  in  a  school  that  some- 
bod}^  can  learn  and  that  somebody  can  know.  In  my  judg- 
ment, every  church  should  be  taxed  precisely  the  same  as 
other  property.  The  church  may  claim  that  it  is  one  of  the 
instruments  of  civilization  and  therefore  should  be  exempt. 
If  you  exempt  that  which  is  useful,  you  exempt  every  trade 
and  every  profession.  In  my  judgment,  theatres  have  done 
more  to  civilize  mankind  than  churches;  that  is  to  saj% 
theatres  have  done  something  to  civilize  mankind— churches 
nothing.  The  effect  of  all  superstition  has  been  to  render 
man  barbarous.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  civilizing  effects  of 
falsehood. 

There  was  a  time  when  ministers  were  supposed  to  be  in 
the  employ  of  God,  and  it  was  thought  that  God  selected 
them  with  great  care — that  their  profession  had  something 
sacred  about  it.  These  ideas  are  no  longer  entertained  by 
sensible  people.  Ministers  should  be  paid  like  other  profes- 
sional men,  and  those  who  like  their  preaching  should  pay 
for  the  preach.  They  should  depend,  as  actors  do,  upon 
their  popularity,  upon  the  amount  of  sense,  or  nonsense, 
that  they  have  for  sale.  They  should  depend  upon  the 
market  like  other  people,  and  if  people  do  not  want  to  hear 
sermons  badly  enough  to  build  churches  and  pay  for  them, 


252  INTERVIEWS. 

and  pay  tHe  taxes  on  them,  and  hire  the  preacher,  let  the 
money  be  diverted  to  some  other  use.  The  pulpit  should  no 
longer  be  a  pauper,  I  do  not  believe  in  carrying  on  any 
business  with  the  contribution  box.  All  the  sectarian  insti- 
tutions ought  to  support  themselves.  There  should  be  no 
Methodist  or  Catholic  or  Presbyterian  hospitals  or  or- 
phan asylums.  All  these  should  be  supported  by  the  State* 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  Catholic  charity,  or  Methodist 
charity.  Charity  belongs  to  humanity,  not  to  any  particu- 
lar form  of  faith  or  religion.  You  will  find  as  charitable 
people  who  never  heard  of  religion,  as  you  can  find  in  any 
church.  The  State  should  provide  for  those  who  ought  ta 
be  provided  for.  A  few  Methodists  beg  of  everybody  they 
meet — send  women  with  subscription  papers,  asking  money 
from  all  classes  of  people,  and  nearly  everybody  gives  some* 
thing  from  politeness,  or  to  keep  from  being  annoyed ;  an{> 
when  the  institution  is  finished,  it  is  pointed  at  as  the  re- 
sult of  Methodism. 

Probably  a  majority  of  the  people  in  this  country  suppose 
that  there  was  no  charity  in  the  world  until  the  Christian 
religion  was  founded.  Great  men  have  repeated  this  false- 
hood,  until  ignorance  and  thoughtlessness  believe  it.  Ther€ 
were  orphan  asylums  in  China,  in  India,  and  in  Egypt, 
thousands  of  years  before  Christ  was  born ;  and  there  cer- 
tainly never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  whole  worlJ 
when  there  was  less  charity  in  Europe  than  during  the  cen- 
turies when  the  Church  of  Christ  had  absolute  power, 
There  were  hundreds  of  Mohammedan  asylums  beforf 
Christianity  had  built  ten  in  the  entire  world. 

All  institutions  for  the  care  of  unfortunate  people  should 
be  secular — should  be  supported  by  the  State.  The  money 
for  the  purpose  should  be  raised  by  taxation,  to  the  end  that 
the  burden  may  be  borne  by  those  able  to  bear  it.  As  it  is 
now,  most  of  the  money  is  paid,  not  by  the  rich,  but  by  the 
generous,  and  those  most  able  to  help  their  needy  fellow- 


INTERVIEWS,  253 

citizens  are  the  very  ones  who  do  nothing.  If  the  money 
is  raised  by  taxation,  then  the  burden  will  fall  where  it 
ought  to  fall,  and  these  institutions  will  no  longer  be  sup- 
ported by  the  generous  and  emotional,  and  the  rich  and 
stingy  will  no  longer  be  able  to  evade  the  duties  of  citizen- 
ship and  of  humanity. 

Now,  as  to  the  Sunday  laws,  we  know  that  they  are  only 
spasmodically  enforced.  Now  and  then  a  few  people  are 
arrested  for  selling  papers  or  cigars.  Some  unfortunate 
barber  is  grabbed  by  a  policeman  because  he  has  been  caught 
shaving  a  Christian,  Sunday  morning.  Now  and  then 
some  poor  fellow  with  a  hack,  trying  to  make  a  dollar  or 
two  to  feed  his  horses,  or  to  take  care  of  his  wife  and  child- 
ren, is  arrested  as  though  he  were  a  murderer.  But  in  a  few 
days  the  public  are  inconvenienced  to  that  degree  that  the 
arrests  stop  and  business  goes  on  in  its  accustomed  channels, 
Sunday  and  all. 

Now  and  then  society  becomes  so  pious,  so  virtuous,  that 
people  are  compelled  to  enter  saloons  by  the  back  door ; 
others  are  compelled  to  drink  beer  with  the  front  shutters 
up ;  but  otherwise  the  stream  that  goes  down  the  thirsty 
throats  is  unbroken.  The  ministers  have  done  their  best  to 
■prevent  all  recreation  on  the  Sabbath.  They  would  like  to 
stop  all  the  boats  on  the  Hudson,  and  on  the  sea — stop  all 
the  excursion  trains.  They  would  like  to  compel  every 
human  being  that  lives  in  the  city  of  New  York  to  remain 
within  its  limits  twentj'-four  hours  each  Sunday.  They 
hate  the  parks ;  they  hate  music ;  they  hate  anything  that 
keeps  a  man  away  from  church.  Most  of  the  churches  are 
empty  during  the  summer,  and  now  most  of  the  ministers 
leave  themselves,  and  give  over  the  entire  city  to  the  Devil 
and  his  emissaries.  And  yet  if  the  ministers  had  their  way, 
there  would  be  no  form  of  human  enjoyment  except  prayer, 
signing  subscription  papers,  putting  money  in  contribution 
boxes,  listening  to  sermons,  reading  the  cheerful  histories 


254  INTERVIEWS. 

of  the  Old  Testament,  imagining  the  joys  of  heaven  and  the 
torments  of  hell.  The  church  is  opposed  to  the  theatre,  is 
the  enemy  of  the  opera,  looks  upon  dancing  as  a  crime, 
hates  billiards,  despises  cards,  opposes  roller-skating,  and 
even  entertains  a  certain  kind  of  prejudice  against  croquet. 
Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  orthodox  church  gets 
its  ideas  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  teachings  of  Christ  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  hold  Christ  responsible  for  these  idiotic 
ideas  concerning  the  Sabbath.  He  regarded  the  Sabbath 
as  something  made  for  man — which  was  a  very  sensible 
view.  The  holiest  day  is  the  happiest  day.  The  most 
sacred  day  is  the  one  in  which  have  been  done  the  most 
good  deeds.  There  are  two  reasons  given  in  the  Bible  for 
keeping  the  Sabbath.  One  is  that  God  made  the  world  in 
six  days,  and  rested  on  the  seventh.  Now  that  all  the 
ministers  admit  that  he  did  not  make  the  world  in  six  days, 
but  that  he  made  it  in  six  *'  periods,  "  this  reason  is  no 
longer  applicable.  The  other  reason  is  that  he  brought 
the  Jews  out  of  Egj^pt  with  a  "  mighty  hand.  "  This  may 
be  a  very  good  reason  still  for  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
by  the  Jews,  but  the  real  Sabbath,  that  is  to  say,  the  day  to 
be  commemoratedjis  our  Saturday,  and  why  should  we  com- 
memorate the  wrong  day  ?  That  disposes  of  the  second 
reason. 

Nothing  can  be  more  inconsistent  than  the  theories  and 
practice  of  the  churches  about  the  Sabbath.  The  cars  run 
Sundays,  and  out  of  the  profits  hundreds  of  ministers  are 
supported.  The  great  iron  and  steel  works  fill  with  smoke 
and  fire  the  Sabbath  air,  and  the  proprietors  divide  the 
profits  with  the  churches.  The  printers  of  the  city  are 
busy  Sunday  afternoons  and  evenings,  and  the  presses 
during  the  nights,  so  that  the  sermons  of  Sunday  can 
reach  the  heathen  on  Monday.  The  servants  of  the  rich 
are  denied  the  privileges  of  the  sanctuary.  The  coachman 
sits  on  the  box  out-doors,  while  his   employer  kneels  in 


INTERVIEWS.  255 

church  preparing  himself  for  the  heavenly  chariot.  The 
iceman  goes  about  on  the  holy  day,  keeping  believers  cool, 
they  knowing  at  the  same  time  that  he  is  making  it  hot  for 
himself  in  the  world  to  come.  Christians  cross  the  Atlantic, 
knowing  that  the  ship  will  pursue  its  way  on  the  Sabbath. 
They  write  letters  to  their  friends  knowing  that  they  will 
be  carried  in  violation  of  Jehovah's  law,  by  wicked  men. 
Yet  the}^  hate  to  see  a  pale-faced  sewing  girl  enjoying  a 
few  hours  by  the  sea ;  a  poor  mechanic  walking  in  the 
fields  ;  or  a  tired  mother  watching  her  children  playing  on 
the  grass.  Nothing  ever  was,  nothing  ever  will  be,  more 
utterly  absurd  and  disgusting  than  a  Puritan  Sunday. 
Nothing  ever  did  make  a  home  more  hateful  than  the  strict 
observance  of  the  Sabbath.  It  fills  the  house  with  hypocrisy 
and  the  meanest  kind  of  petty  tyranny.  The  parents  look 
sour  and  stern,  the  children  sad  and  sulky.  They  are  com- 
pelled to  talk  upon  subjects  about  which  they  feel  no 
interest,  or  to  read  books  that  are  thought  good  only  be- 
cause they  are  stupid. 

Questio7i.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  growth  of 
Catholicism,  the  activity  of  the  Salvation  Army,  and  the 
success  of  revivalists  like  the  Rev.  Samuel  Jones?  Is 
Christianity  really  gaining  a  strong  hold  on  the  masses  ? 

Answer.  Catholicism  is  growing  in  this  country,  and  it  is 
the  onl}^  country  on  earth  in  which  it  is  growing.  Its 
growth  here  depends  entirely  upon  immigration,  not  upon 
intellectual  conquest.  Catholic  emigrants  who  leave  their 
homes  in  the  Old  World  because  they  have  never  had  any 
liberty,  and  who  are  Catholics  for  the  same  reason,  add  to 
the  number  of  Catholics  here,  but  their  children's  children 
will  not  be  Catholics.  Their  children  will  not  be  very 
good  Catholics,  and  even  these  immigrants  themselves,  in  a 
few  years,  will  not  grovel  quite  so  low  in  the  presence  of  a 
priest.  The  Catholic  Church  is  gaining  no  ground  in 
Catholic  countries. 


2  56  INTERVIEWS. 

The  Salvation  Arm}^  is  the  result  of  two  things — the 
general  belief  in  what  are  known  as  the  fundamentals  of 
Christianity  and  the  heartlessness  of  the  church.  The 
church  in  England — that  is  to  say,  the  Church  of  England — 
having  succeeded — that  is  to  say,  being  supported  by  gen- 
eral taxation — that  is  to  say,  being  a  successful,  well-fed 
parasite — naturall}'-  neglected  those  who  did  not  in  any 
way  contribute  to  its  support.  It  became  aristocratic. 
Splendid  churches  were  built ;  younger  sons  with  good 
voices  were  put  in  the  pulpits  ;  the  pulpit  became  the  asy- 
lum for  aristocratic  mediocrity,  and  in  that  way  the  Church 
of  England  lost  interest  in  the  masses  and  the  masses  lost 
interest  in  the  Church  of  England.  The  neglected  poor, 
who  really  had  some  belief  in  religion,  and  who  had  not 
been  absolutely  petrified  by  form  and  patronage,  were 
ready  for  the  Salvation  Arm3\  They  were  not  at  home  in 
the  church.  They  could  not  pay.  They  preferred  the 
freedom  of  the  street.  They  preferred  to  attend  a  church 
where  rags  were  no  objection.  Had  the  church  loved  and 
labored  with  the  poor  the  Salvation  Army  never  would 
have  existed.  These  people  are  simply  giving  their  idea 
of  Christianity,  and  in  their  way  endeavoring  to  do  what 
they  consider  good.  I  don't  suppose  the  Salvation  Army 
will  accomplish  much.  To  improve  mankind  you  must 
change  conditions.  It  is  not  enough  to  work  simply  upon 
the  emotional  nature.  The  surroundings  must  be  such  as 
naturally  produce  virtuous  actions.  If  we  are  to  believe 
recent  reports  from  London,  the  Church  of  England,  even 
with  the  assistance  of  the  Salvation  Army,  has  accom- 
plished but  little.  It  would  be  hard  to  find  any  savage 
country  with  less  morality.  You  would  search  long  in 
the  jungles  of  Africa  to  find  greater  depravity, 

I  account  for  revivalists  like  the  Rev.  Samuel  Jones  in  the 
same  way.  There  is  in  every  community  an  ignoranc 
class — what  you  might  call  a  literal  class — who  believe  in 


INTERVIEWS.  257 

the  real  blood  atonement;  who  believe  in  heaven  and  hell, 
and  harps  and  gridirons ;  who  have  never  had  their  faith 
weakened  by  reading  commentators  or  books  harmonizing 
science  and  religion.  They  love  to  hear  the  good  old  doc- 
trine ;  they  want  hell  described ;  they  want  it  described  so 
that  they  can  hear  the  moans  and  shrieks ;  they  want 
heaven  described ;  they  want  to  see  God  on  a  throne,  and 
they  want  to  feel  that  they  are  finally  to  have  the  pleasure 
of  looking  over  the  battlements  of  heaven  and  seeing  all 
their  enemies  among  the  damned.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Munger 
has  suddenly  become  a  revivalist.  According  to  the 
papers  he  is  sought  for  in  every  direction.  His  popu- 
larity seems  to  rest  upon  the  fact  that  he  brutally  beat  a 
girl  twelve  years  old  because  she  did  not  say  her  prayers 
to  suit  him.  Muscular  Christianity  is  what  the  ignorant 
people  want.  I  regard  all  these  efforts — including  those 
made  by  Mr.  Moody  and  Mr.  Hammond — as  evidence  that 
Christianity,  as  an  intellectual  factor,  has  almost  spent  its 
force.     It  no  longer  governs  the  intellectual  world. 

Question.  Are  not  the  Catholics  the  least  progressive  ? 
And  are  they  not,  in  spite  of  their  professions  to  the  con- 
trary, enemies  to   republican  liberty  ? 

A^iswer.  Every  church  that  has  a  standard  higher  than 
human  welfare  is  dangerous.  A  church  that  puts  a  book 
above  the  laws  and  constitution  of  its  country,  that  puts  a 
book  above  the  welfare  of  mankind,  is  dangerous  to  human 
liberty.  Every  church  that  puts  itself  above  the  legally 
expressed  will  of  the  people  is  dangerous.  Every  church 
that  holds  itself  under  greater  obligation  to  a  pope  than  to 
a  people  is  dangerous  to  human  liberty.  Every  church 
that  puts  religion  above  humanity — above  the  well-being 
of  man  in  this  world — is  dangerous.  The  Catholic  Church 
may  be  more  dangerous,  not  because  its  doctrines  are  more 
dangerous,  but  because,  on  the  average,  its  members  more 
sincerely  believe  its  doctrines,  and  because  that  church  caa 


258  INTERVIEWS. 

be  hurled  as  a  solid  body  in  any  given  direction.  For  these 
reasons  it  is  more  dangerous  than  other  churches ;  but  its 
doctrines  are  no  more  dangerous  than  those  of  the  Protest- 
ant churches.  The  man  who  would  sacrifice  the  well-being 
of  man  to  please  an  imaginary  phantom  that  he  calls  God, 
is  also  dangerous.  The  only  safe  standard  is  the  well-being 
of  man  in  this  world.  Whenever  this  world  is  sacrificed 
for  the  sake  of  another,  a  mistake  has  been  made.  The  only 
God  that  man  can  know  is  the  aggregate  of  all  beings  ca- 
pable of  suffering  and  of  joy  within  the  reach  of  his  influ- 
ence. To  increase  the  happiness  of  such  beings  is  to 
worship  the  only  God  that  man  can  know. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  to  the  assertion  of  Dr. 
Deems  that  there  were  never  so  many  Christians  as  now  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  the  population  of  the  earth  is 
greater  now  than  at  any  other  time  within  the  historic 
period.  This  being  so,  there  may  be  more  Christians,  so- 
called,  in  the  world  than  there  were  a  hundred  years  ago. 
Of  course,  the  reverend  doctor,  in  making  up  his  aggregate 
of  Christians,  counts  all  kinds  and  sects — Unitarians,  Uni- 
versalists,  and  all  the  other  "  ans  "  and  "  ists  "  and  "  ics  " 
and  "  ites  "  and  "  ers."  B?n  Dr.  Deems  must  admit  that 
only  a  few  years  ago  most  of  the  persons  he  now  calls 
Christians  would  have  been  burnt  as  heretics  and  Infidels. 
I/et  us  compare  the  average  N-^w  York  Christian  with  the 
Christian  of  two  hundred  years  ago.  It  is  probably  safe  to 
say  that  there  is  not  now  in  the  city  of  New  York  a  genu- 
ine Presbyterian  outside  of  an  insane  asylum.  Probably 
no  one  could  be  found  who  will  to-day  admit  that  he  be- 
lieves absolutely  in  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith. 
There  is  probably  not  an  Episcopalian  who  believes  in  the 
Thirty -nine  Articles.  Probably  there  is  not  an  intelligent 
minister  in  the  city  of  New  York,  outside  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  who  believes  that  everything  in  the  Bible  is  true. 
Probably  no  clergyman,  of  any  standing,  would  be  willing 


INTERVIEWS.  259 

to  take  the  ground  that  everything  in  the  Old  Testament 
— leaving  out  the  question  of  inspiration — is  actually  true. 
Very  few  ministers  now  preach  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment.  Most  of  them  would  be  ashamed  to  utter  that 
brutal  falsehood.  A  large  majority  of  gentlemen  who  at- 
tend church  take  the  liberty  of  disagreeing  with  the 
preacher.  They  would  have  been  very  poor  Christians  two 
hundred  years  ago.  A  majority  of  the  ministers  take  the 
liberty  of  disagreeing,  in  many  things,  with  their  Presby- 
teries and  Synods.  They  would  have  been  very  poor 
preachers  two  hundred  years  ago.  Dr.  Deems  forgets  that 
most  Christians  are  only  nominally  so.  Very  few  believe 
their  creeds.  Very  few  even  try  to  live  in  accordance  with 
what  they  call  Christian  doctrines.  Nobody  loves  his 
enemies.  No  Christian  when  smitten  on  one  cheek  turns 
the  other.  Most  Christians  do  take  a  little  thought  for  the 
morrow.  They  do  not  depend  entirely  upon  the  providence 
of  God.  Most  Christians  now  have  greater  confidence  in 
the  average  life  insurance  company  than  in  God — feel 
easier  when  dying  to  know  that  they  have  a  policy,  through 
which  they  expect  the  widow  will  receive  ten  thousand 
dollars,  than  when  thinking  of  all  the  Scripture  promises. 
Even  church-members  do  not  trust  in  God  to  protect  their 
own  property.  They  insult  heaven  by  putting  lightning 
rods  on  their  temples.  They  insure  the  churches  against 
the  act  of  God.  The  experience  of  man  has  shown  the 
wisdom  of  relying  on  something  that  we  know  something 
about,  instead  of  upon  the  shadowy  supernatural.  The  poor 
wretches  to-day  in  Spain,  depending  upon  their  priests,  die 
like  poisoned  flies;  die  with  prayers  between  their  pallid 
lips ;  die  in  their  filth  and  faith. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  on  the  Mormon  question  ? 

Answer.  The  institution  of  polygamy  is  infamous  and 
disgusting  bej^ond  expression.  It  destroys  what  we  call, 
and  what  all  civilized  people  call,"  the  family."     It  pollutes 


26o  INTERVIEWS. 

the  fireside,  and,  above  all,  as  Burns  would  say,  *^  petrifies 
the  feeling."  It  is,  however,  one  of  the  institutions  of 
Jehovah.  It  is  protected  by  the  Bible.  It  has  inspiration 
on  its  side.  Sinai,  with  its  barren,  granite  peaks,  is  a  per- 
petual witness  in  its  favor.  The  beloved  of  God  practiced 
it,  and,  according  to  the  sacred  word,  the  wisest  man  had,  I 
believe,  about  seven  hundred  wives.  This  man  received  his 
wisdom  directly  from  God.  It  is  hard  for  the  average  Bible- 
worshiper  to  attack  this  institution  without  casting  a  certain 
stain  upon  his  own  book. 

Only  a  few  years  ago  slavery  was  upheld  by  the  same 
Bible.  Slavery  having  been  abolished,  the  passages  in  the 
inspired  volume  upholding  it  have  been  mostly  forgotten ; 
but  polygamy  lives,  and  the  polygamists,  with  great  volu- 
bility, repeat  the  passages  in  their  favor.  We  send  our 
missionaries  to  Utah,  with  their  Bibles,  to  convert  the  Mor- 
mons. 

The  Mormons  show,  by  these  very  Bibles,  that  God 
is  on  their  side.  Nothing  remains  now  for  the  missionaries 
except  to  get  back  their  Bibles  and  come  home.  The 
preachers  do  not  appeal  to  the  Bible  for  the  purpose  of  put- 
ting down  Mormonism.  They  say:'*  Send  the  army."  If 
the  people  of  this  country  could  only  be  honest ;  if  they 
would  only  admit  that  the  Old  Testament  is  but  the  record 
of  a  barbarous  people ;  if  the  Samson  of  the  nineteenth 
century  would  not  allow  its  limbs  to  be  bound  by  the  Delilah 
of  superstition,  it  could  with  one  blow  destroy  this  monsten 
What  shall  we  say  of  the  moral  force  of  Christianity,  when 
it  utterly  fails  in  the  presence  of  Mormonism  ?  What  shall 
we  say  of  a  Bible  that  we  dare  not  read  to  a  Mormon  as  an 
argument  against  legalized  lust,  or  as  an  argument  against 
illegal  lust  ? 

I  am  opposed  to  polygamy.  I  want  it  exterminated  by 
law ;  but  I  hate  to  see  the  exterminators  insist  that  God, 
only  a  few  thousand  years  ago,  was  as  bad  as  the  Mormons 


INTERVIEWS.  261 

are  to-day.  In  my  judgment,  such  a  God  ought  to  be  ex- 
terminated. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  men  like  the  Rev.  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  and  the  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton?  Do  they 
deserve  any  credit  for  the  course  they  have  taken  ? 

Answer.  Mr,  Beecher  is  evidently  endeavoring  to  shore 
up  the  walls  of  the  falling  temple.  He  sees  the  cracks  ;  he 
knows  that  the  building  is  out  of  plumb  ;  he  feels  that  the 
foundation  is  insecure.  Lies  can  take  the  place  of  stones 
only  so  long  as  they  are  thoroughly  believed.  Mr,  Beecher 
is  trying  to  do  something  to  harmonize  superstition  and 
science.  He  is  reading  between  the  lines.  He  has  discov- 
ered that  Darwin  is  only  a  later  Saint  Paul,  or  that  Saint 
Paul  was  the  original  Darwin.  He  is  endeavoring  to  make 
the  New  Testament  a  scientific  text-book.  Of  course  he 
will  fail.  But  his  intentions  are  good.  Thousands  of  people 
will  read  the  New  Testament  with  more  freedom  than  here- 
tofore. They  will  look  for  new  meanings ;  and  he  who 
looks  for  new  meanings  will  not  be  satisfied  with  the  old 
ones.  Mr.  Beecher,  instead  of  strengthening  the  walls,  will 
make  them  weaker. 

There  is  no  harmony  between  religion  and  science.  When 
science  was  a  child,  religion  sought  to  strangle  it  in  the 
cradle.  Now  that  science  has  attained  its  youth,  and  super- 
stition is  in  its  dotage,  the  trembling,  palsied  wreck  says  to 
the  athlete :  "  Let  us  be  friends."  It  reminds  me  of  the  bar- 
gain the  cock  wished  to  make  with  the  horse :  "  Let  us 
agree  not  to  step  on  each  other's  feet."  Mr.  Beecher, having 
done  away  with  hell,  substitutes  annihilation.  His  doctrine 
at  present  is  that  only  a  fortunate  few  are  immortal,  and  that 
the  great  mass  return  to  dreamless  dust.  This,  of  course,  is 
far  better  than  hell,  and  is  a  great  improvement  on  the 
orthodox  view.  Mr.  Beecher  cannot  believe  that  God  would 
make  such  a  mistake  as  to  make  men  doomed  to  suffer 
eternal  pain.     Why,  I  ask,  should  God  give  life  to  men 


262  INTERVIEWS. 

whom  he  knows  are  unworthy  of  life?  '\^niy  should  he  an- 
nihilate his  mistakes  ?  Why  should  he  make  mistakes  that 
need  annihilation  ? 

It  can  hardly  be  said  that  Mr.  Beecher's  idea  is  a  new  one. 
It  was  taught,  with  an  addition^  thousands  of  years  ago,  in 
India,  and  the  addition  almost  answers  my  objection.  The 
old  doctrine  was  that  only  the  soul  that  bears  fruit,  only  the 
soul  that  bursts  into  blossom,  will  at  the  death  of  the  body 
rejoin  the  Infinite,  and  that  all  other  souls — souls  not  hav- 
ing blossomed — will  go  back  into  low  forms  and  make  the 
journey  up  to  man  once  more,  and  should  they  then  blossom 
and  bear  fruit,  will  be  held  worthy  to  join  the  Infinite,  but 
should  they  again  fail,  they  again  go  back ;  and  this  process 
is  repeated  until  they  do  blossom,  and  in  this  way  all  souls 
at  last  become  perfect.  I  suggest  that  Mr.  Beecher  make 
at  least  this  addition  to  his  doctrine. 

But  allow  me  to  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  Mr,  Beecher 
is  doing  great  good.  He  may  not  convince  many  people 
that  he  is  right,  but  he  will  certainly  convince  a  great  many 
people  that  Christianity  is  wrong. 

Question.  In  what  estimation  do  you  hold  Charles  Watts 
and  Samuel  Putnam,  and  what  do  you  think  of  their  labors 
in  the  cause  of  Freethought  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Watts  is  an  extremely  logical  man,  with  a 
direct  and  straightforward  manner  and  mind.  He  has  paid 
great  attention  to  what  is  called  "Secularism."  He  thor- 
oughly understands  organization,  and  he  is  undoubtedly  one 
of  the  strongest  debaters  in  the  field.  He  has  had  great 
experiencCo  He  has  demolished  more  divines  than  any  man 
of  my  acquaintance.  I  have  read  several  of  his  debates.  In 
discussion  he  is  quick,  pertinent,  logical,  and,  above  all, 
good  natured. 

There  is  not  in  all  he  says  a  touch  cr  jfnalitr,.  He  can 
afford  to  be  generous  to  his  antagonists,  bscause  he  is  always 
the  victor,  and  is  always  sure  of  the  victory.     Last  winter 


inter't:ews.  263 

wherever  I  went,  I  heard  the  most  favorable  accounts  of 
Mr.  Watts.     All  who  heard  him  were  delighted. 

Mr.  Putnam  is  one  of  the  most  thorough  believers  in  in- 
tellectual liberty  in  the  world.  He  believes  with  all  his 
heart,  is  full  of  enthusiasm,  ready  to  make  any  sacrifice,  and 
to  endure  any  hardship.  Had  he  lived  a  few  years  ago,  he 
would  have  been  a  martyr.  He  has  written  some  of  the 
most  stirring  appeals  to  the  Liberals  of  this  country  that  I 
have  ever  read.  He  believes  that  Freethought  has  a  future ; 
that  the  time  is  coming  when  the  superstitions  of  the  world 
will  either  be  forgotten,  or  remembered — some  of  them  with 
smiles — most  of  them  with  tears.  Mr.  Putnam,  although 
endowed  with  a  poetic  nature,  with  poetic  insight,  clings  to 
the  known,  builds  upon  the  experience  of  man,  and  believes 
in  fancies  only  when  they  are  used  as  the  wings  of  a  fact.  I 
have  never  met  a  man  who  appeared  to  be  more  thoroughly 
devoted  to  the  great  cause  of  mental  freedom.  I  have  read 
his  books  with  great  interest,  and  find  in  them  many  pages 
filled  with  philosophy  and  pathos.  I  have  met  him  often 
and  I  never  heard  him  utter  a  harsh  word  about  any  human 
being.  His  good  nature  is  as  unfailing  as  the  air.  His 
abilities  are  of  the  highest  order.  It  is  a  positive  pleasure 
to  meet  him.  He  is  so  enthusiastic,  so  unselfish,  so  natural, 
so  appreciative  of  others,  so  thoughtful  for  the  cause,  and 
so  careless  of  himself,  that  lie  compels  the  admiration  of 
every  one  who  really  loves  the  just  and  true. — The  Truth  Seeker^ 

New  York,  September  5, 1885. 

THE  PRESIDEINT  AND  SENATE. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  with  reference  to  tne 
lespective  attitudes  of  the  President  and  Senate? 

Answer.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  the  right 
of  the  Senate  to  call  on  the  President  for  information.  Of 
course  that  means  for  what  information  he  has.  When  a 
duty  devolves  upon  two  persons,  one  of  them  has  no  right 


264  INTERVIEWS. 

to  withhold  any  facts  calculated  to  throw  any  light  on  the 
question  that  both  are  to  decide.  The  President  cannot 
appoint  any  officer  who  has  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Senate; 
he  can  simply  nominate.  The  Senate  cannot  even  suggest 
a  name ;  it  can  only  pass  upon  the  person  nominated.  If  it 
is  called  upon  for  counsel  and  advice,  how  can  it  give  advice 
without  knowing  the  facts  and  circumstances?  The  Presi- 
dent must  have  a  reason  for  wishing  to  make  a  change. 
He  should  give  that  reason  to  the  Senate  without  waiting  to 
be  asked.  He  has  assured  the  country  that  he  is  a  civil 
service  reformer ;  that  no  man  is  to  be  turned  out  because 
he  is  a  Republican,  and  no  man  appointed  because  he  is  a 
Democrat.  Now,  the  Senate  has  given  the  President  an 
opportunity  to  prove  that  he  has  acted  as  he  has  talked. 
If  the  President  feels  that  he  is  bound  to  carry  out  the  civil 
service  law,  ought  not  the  Senate  to  feel  in  the  same  way  ? 
Is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  Senate  to  see  to  it  that  the  President 
does  not,  with  its  advice  and  consent,  violate  the  civil 
service  law?  Is  the  consent  of  the  Senate  a  mere  matter  of 
form?  In  these  appointments  the  President  is  not  inde- 
pendent of  or  above  the  Senate ;  they  are  equal,  and  each 
has  the  right  to  be  ''honor  bright"  with  the  other,  at  least. 
As  long  as  this  foolish  law  is  unrepealed  it  must  be 
carried  out.  Neither  party  is  in  favor  of  civil  service  re- 
form, and  never  was.  The  Republican  party  did  not  carry 
it  out,  and  did  not  intend  to.  The  President  has  the  right 
to  nominate.  Under  the  law  as  it  is  now,  when  the 
President  wants  to  appoint  a  clerk,  or  when  one  of  his 
secretaries  wants  one,  four  names  are  sent,  and  from  these 
four  names  a  choice  has  to  be  made.  This  is  clearly  an 
invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  Executive.  If  they  have  the 
right  to  compel  the  President  to  choose  from  four,  why  not 
from  three,  or  two  ?  Why  not  name  the  one,  and  have  done 
with  it?  The  law  is  worse  than  unconstitutional — it  is 
absurd. 


INTERVIEWS,  265 

But  in  this  contest  the  Senate,  in  my  judgment,  is  right. 
In  my  opinion,  by  the  time  Cleveland  goes  out  most  of  the 
offices  will  be  filled  with  Democrats,  If  the  Republicans 
succeed  next  time,  I  know,  and  everybody  knows,  that  they 
will  never  rest  easy  until  they  get  the  Democrats  out. 
They  will  shout  "offensive  partisanship.'*  The  truth  is, 
the  theory  is  wrong.  Every  citizen  should  take  an  interest 
in  politics,  A  good  man  should  not  agree  to  keep  silent 
just  for  the  sake  of  an  office,  A  man  owes  his  best  thoughts 
to  his  country.  If  he  ought  to  defend  his  country  in  time 
of  war,  and  under  certain  circumstances  give  his  life  for  it, 
can  we  say  that  in  time  of  peace  he  is  under  no  obligation 
to  discharge  what  he  believes  to  be  a  duty,  if  he  happens  to 
hold  an  office?  Must  he  sell  his  birthright  for  the  sake  of 
being  a  doorkeeper?  The  whole  doctrine  is  absurd  and 
never  will  be  carried  out. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  as  to  the  presidental  race  ? 

Answer.  That  is  a  good  way  off.  I  think  the  people  can 
hardly  be  roused  to  enthusiasm  by  the  old  names.  Our 
party  must  take  another  step  forward.  We  cannot  live  on 
what  we  have  done ;  we  must  seek  power  for  the  sake,  not 
of  power,  but  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  purpose.  We 
must  reform  the  tariff.  We  must  settle  the  question  of 
silver.  We  must  have  sense  enough  to  know  what  the 
country  needs,  and  courage  enough  to  tell  it.  By  reform- 
ing the  tariff,  I  mean  protect  that  and  that  only  that  needs 
protection — laws  for  the  country  and  not  for  the  few.  We 
want  honest  money ;  we  want  a  dollar's  worth  of  gold  in  a 
silver  dollar,  and  a  dollar's  worth  of  silver  in  a  gold  dollar. 
We  want  to  make  them  of  equal  value.  Bi-metallism  does 
not  mean  that  eighty  cents'  worth  of  silver  is  worth  one 
hundred  in  gold.  The  Republican  party  must  get  back  its 
conscience  and  be  guided  by  it  in  deciding  the  questions 
that  arise.  Great  questions  are  pressing  for  solution. 
Thousands  of  working  people   are  in  want.     Busiu^ss  is 


266  INTERVIEWS. 

depressed.  The  future  is  filled  with  clouds.  What  does 
the  Republican  party  propose  ?  Must  we  wait  for  mobs  to 
inaugurate  reform  ?  Must  we  depend  on  police  or  states- 
men ?  Should  we  wait  and  crush  by  brute  force  or  should 
we  prevent  ? 

The  toilers  demand  that  eight  hours  should  constitute  a 
day's  work.  Upon  this  question  what  does  our  party  say? 
Labor  saving  machines  ought  to  lighten  the  burdens  of  the 
laborers.  It  will  not  do  to  say  "  over  production"  and  keep  on 
inventing  machines  and  refuse  to  shorten  the  hours.  What 
does  our  party  say  ?  The  rich  can  take  care  of  themselves 
if  the  mob  will  let  them  alone,  and  there  will  be  no  mob  if 
there  is  no  widespread  want.  Hunger  is  a  communist. 
The  next  candidate  of  the  Republican  party  must  be  big 
enough  and  courageous  enough  to  answer  these  questions. 
If  we  find  that  kind  of  a  candidate  we  shall  succeed — if  we 

do  not, we  ought  not. — CAica£-oInUr-Ocean,¥ehTu&Tj,188Q. 

ATHEISM  AND  CITIZENSHIP. 

QtiesHon.  Have  you  noticed  the  decision  of  Mr.  Nathaniel 
Jarvis,  Jr.,  clerk  of  the  Naturalization  Bureau  of  the  Court 
of  Common  Pleas,  that  an  Atheist  cannot  become  a  citizen  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  but  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  for  a  man 
to  be  a  theist  in  order  to  become  or  to  remain  a  citizen 
of  this  country.  The  various  laws,  from  1790  up  to  1828, 
provided  that  the  person  wishing  to  be  naturalized  might 
make  oath  or  affirmation.  The  first  exception  you  will 
find  in  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States  passed 
in  1873-74,  section  2,165,  as  follows: — "An  alien  may  be 
admitted  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  in  the 
following  manner,  and  not  otherwise: — First,  he  shall 
declare  on  oath,  before  a  Circuit  or  District  Court  of  the 
United  States,  etc."  I  suppose  Mr.  Jarvis  felt  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  comply  with  this  section.  In  this  section  there  is 
nothing  about  affirmation-~-only  the  word  "  oath"  is  used — 


INTERVIEWS.  '^^1 

and  Mr.  Jarvis  came  to  the  conclusion  that  an  Atheist  could 
not  take  an  oath,  and,  therefore,  could  not  declare  his  in- 
tention legally  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Undoubtedly  Mr.  Jarvis  felt  it  his  duty  to  stand  by  the  law 
and  to  see  to  it  that  nobody  should  become  a  citizen  of  this 
country  who  had  not  a  well  defined  belief  in  the  existence  of 
a  being  that  he  could  not  define  and  that  no  man  has  ever 
been  able  to  define.  In  other  words,  that  he  should  be 
perfectly  convinced  that  there  is  a  being  "  without  body, 
parts  or  passions,"  who  presides  over  the  destinies  of 
this  world,  and  more  especiall}^  those  of  New  York  in  and 
about  that  part  known  as  City  Hall  Park. 

Question.  Was  not  Mr.  Jarvis  right  in  standing  by  the 
law? 

Answer,  If  Mr.  Jarvis  is  right,  neither  Humboldt  nor 
Darwin  could  have  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
Wagner,  the  greatest  of  musicians,  not  being  able  to  take 
an  oath,  would  have  been  left  an  alien.  Under  this  ruling 
Haeckel,  Spencer  and  Tyndall  would  be  denied  citizen- 
ship— that  is  to  say,  the  six  greatest  men  produced  by  the 
human  race  in  the  nineteenth  century,  w^ere  and  are  unfit 
to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Those  who  have  placed 
the  human  race  in  debt  cannot  be  citizens  of  the  Republic. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  ignorant  wufe  beater,  the  criminal, 
the  pauper  raised  in  the  workhouse,  could  take  the  neces- 
sary oath  and  would  be  welcomed  by  New  York  ''with  arms 
outstretched  as  she  would  fly." 

Question.  You  have  quoted  one  statute.  Is  there  no 
other  applicable  to  this  case  ? 

Answer.  I  am  coming  to  that.  If  Mr.  Jarvis  will  take 
the  pains  to  read  not  only  the  law  of  naturalization  in 
section  2,165  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States, 
but  the  very  first  chapter  in  the  book,  "Title  I.,  "  he  will 
find  in  the  very  first  section  this  sentence:  ''  The  require- 
ment of  any  *  oath  '  shall  be  deemed  complied  with  by  mak- 


268  INTERVIEWS. 

ing  affirmation  in  official  form."  This  applies  to  section 
2,165.  Of  course  an  Atheist  can  affirm,  and  the  statute 
provides  that  wherever  an  oath  is  required  affirmation  may- 
be made. 

Question.  Did  you  read  the  recent  action  of  Judge 
O'Gorman,  of  the  Superior  Court,  in  refusing  naturaliza- 
tion papers  to  an  applicant  because  he  had  not  read  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  I  did.  The  United  States  Constitution  is  a  very- 
important  document,  a  good,  sound  document,  but  it  is 
talked  about  a  great  deal  more  than  it  is  read.  I'll  venture 
that  you  may  commence  at  the  Battery  to  interview  mer- 
chants and  other  business  men  about  the  Constitution  and 
you  will  talk  with  a  hundred  before  you  will  find  one  who 

has  ever  read  it. — New  York  Herald^  August  8,  18S6. 

THE   LABOR   QUESTION. 

Question.  What  is  your  remedy.  Colonel,  for  the  labor 
troubles  of  the  day  ? 

Answer.  One  remedy  is  this:  I  should  like  to  see  the 
laboring  men  succeed.  I  should  like  to  see  them  have  a 
majority  in  Congress  and  with  a  President  of  their  own, 
I  should  like  to  see  this  so  that  they  could  satisfy  themselves 
how  little,  after  all,  can  be  accomplished  by  legislation. 
The  moment  responsibility  should  touch  their  shoulders 
they  would  become  conservative.  They  would  find  that 
making  a  living  in  this  world  is  an  individual  affair,  and 
that  each  man  must  look  out  for  himself.  They  would 
soon  find  that  the  Government  cannot  take  care  of  the 
people.  The  people  must  support  the  Government. 
Everything  cannot  be  regulated  by  law.  The  factors  en- 
tering into  this  problem  are  substantially  infinite  and  be- 
yond the  intellectual  grasp  of  any  human  being.  Perhaps 
nothing  in  the  world  will  convince  the  laboring  man  how 
little   can   be   accomplished  by  law  until  there  is  oppor' 


INTERVIEWS.  269 

tunity  of  trying.  To  discuss  the  question  will  do  good, 
so  I  am  in  favor  of  its  discussion.  To  give  the  workingmen 
a  trial  will  do  good,  so  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  them  a 
trial. 

Question.  But  you  have  not  answered  my  question  :  I 
asked  you  what  could  be  done,  and  you  have  told  me  what 
could  not  be  done.  Now,  is  there  not  some  better  organi- 
zation of  society  that  will  help  in  this  trouble  ? 

Answer.  Undoubtedly.  Unless  humanity  is  a  failure, 
society  will  improve  from  year  to  year  and  from  age  to  age. 
There  will  be,  as  the  years  go  by,  less  want,  less  injustice, 
and  the  gifts  of  nature  will  be  more  equally  divided,  but 
there  will  never  come  a  time  when  the  weak  can  do  as 
much  as  the  strong,  or  when  the  mentally  weak  can  accom- 
plish as  much  as  the  intellectually  strong.  There  will  for- 
ever be  inequality  in  society;  but,  in  my  judgment,  the 
time  will  come  when  an  honest,  industrious  person  need 
not  want.  In  my  judgment,  that  will  come,  not  through 
governmental  control,  not  through  governmental  slavery, 
not  through  what  is  called  Socialism,  but  through  liberty 
and  through  individuality.  I  can  conceive  of  no  greater 
slavery  than  to  have  everything  done  by  the  Government. 
I  want  free  scope  given  to  individual  effort.  In  time  some 
things  that  governments  have  done  will  be  removed.  The 
creation  of  a  nobility,  the  giving  of  vast  rights  to  corpora- 
tions, and  the  bestowment  of  privileges  on  the  few  will  be 
done  away  with.  In  other  words,  governmental  interfer- 
ence will  cease  and  man  will  be  left  more  to  himself.  The 
future  will  not  do  away  with  want  by  charity,  which  gen- 
erally creates  more  want  than  it  alleviates,  but  by  justice 
and  intelligence.  Shakespeare  says,  "  There  is  no  dark- 
ness but  ignorance, "  and  it  might  be  added  that  ignorance 

is    the    mother    of    most    suffering. — 77;«  ^/??/^«r^r,  Cincinnati,  Oliio, 
September  30, 1886. 


RAILROADS  AND  POLITICS. 

QtcesHon.  You  are  intimately  acquainted  with  the  g^eat 
railroad  managers  and  the  great  railroad  systems,  and  what 
do  you  think  is  the  great  need  of  the  railways  to-day  ? 

Answer.  The  great  need  of  the  railroads  to-day  is  more 
business,  more  cars,  better  equipments,  better  pay  for  the 
men  and  less  gambling  in  Wall  Street. 

Question.  Is  it  your  experience  that  public  men  usually 
ride  on  passes  ? 

Answe7\  Yes,  whenever  they  can  get  them.  Passes  are 
for  the  rich.  Only  those  are  expected  to  pay  who  can 
scarcely  ajfford  it.  Nothing  shortens  a  journey,  nothing 
makes  the  road  as  smooth,  nothing  keeps  down  the  dust  and 
keeps  out  the  smoke  like  a  pass. 

Question.  Don't  you  think  that  the  pass  system  is  an  in- 
justice— that  is,  that  ordinary  travelers  are  taxed  for  the 
man  who  rides  on  a  pass  ? 

Answer.  Certainly,  those  who  pay,  pay  for  those  who  do 
not.  This  is  one  of  the  misfortunes  of  the  obscure.  It  is 
so  with  everything.     The  big  fish  live  on  the  little  oneSf 

Question.  Are  not  parallel  railroads  an  evil  ? 

Answer.  No,  unless  they  are  too  near  together.  Compe^ 
tition  does  some  good  and  some  harm,  but  it  must  exist. 
All  these  things  must  be  left  to  take  care  of  themselves.  If 
the  Government  interferes  it  is  at  the  expense  of  the  man- 
hood and  liberty  of  the  people. 

Answer.  But  wouldn't  it  be  better  for  the  people  if  the 
railroads  were  managed  by  the  Government  as  is  the  Post- 
Office? 

Answer.  No,  everything  that  individuals  can  do  should 
be  left  to  them.     If  the  Government  takes  charge  of  the 

(270) 


INTERVIEWS.  271 

people  they  become  weak  and  helpless.  The  people  should 
take  charge  of  the  Government.     Give  the  folks  a  chance. 

Question.  In  the  next  presidential  contest  what  will  be 
the  main  issue  ? 

Answer.  The  Maine  issue  ! 

Question.  Would  you  again  refuse  to  take  the  stump  for 
Mr.  Blaine  if  he  should  be  renominated,  and  if  so,  why  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  expect  to  take  the  stump  for  anybody. 
Mr.  Blaine  is  probably  a  candidate,  and  if  he  is  nominated 
there  will  be  plenty  of  people  on  the  stump — or  fence — or 
up  a  tree  or  somewhere  in  the  woods. 

Question.  What  are  the  most  glaring  mistakes  of  Cleve- 
land's administration  ? 

Answer.  First,  accepting  the  nomination.    Second,  taking 

the  oath  of  office.  Third,  not  resigning. —  Times  star,  Cincinnati, 
September  30,  1886. 

PROHIBITION. 

Question.  How  much  importance  do  you  attach  to  the 
present  prohibition  movement  ? 

Answer.  No  particular  importance.  I  am  opposed  to 
prohibition  and  always  have  been,  and  hope  always  to  be. 
I  do  not  want  the  Legislature  to  interfere  in  these  mat- 
ters. I  do  not  believe  that  the  people  can  be  made  tem- 
perate by  law.  Men  and  women  are  not  made  great  and 
good  by  the  law.  There  is  no  good  in  the  world  that  can- 
not be  abused.  Prohibition  fills  the  world  with  spies  and 
tattlers,  and,  besides  that,  where  a  majority  of  the  people 
are  not  in  favor  of  it  the  law  will  not  be  enforced  ;  and  where 
a  majority  of  the  people  are  in  favor  of  it  there  is  not  much 
need  of  the  law.  Where  a  majority  are  against  it,  juries 
will  violate  their  oath,  and  witnessess  will  get  around  the 
truth,  and  the  result  is  demoralization.  Take  wine  and 
malt  liquors  out  of  the  world  and  we  shall  lose  a  vast  deal 
of  good  fellowship;  the   world   would   lose   more   than  it 


272  INTERVIEWS. 

would  gain.  There  is  a  certain  sociability  about  wine 
that  I  should  hate  to  have  taken  from  the  earth.  Strong 
liquors  the  folks  had  better  let  alone.  If  prohibition 
succeeds,  and  wines  and  malt  liquors  go,  the  next  thing 
will  be  to  take  tobacco  away,  and  the  next  thing  all  other 
pleasures,  until  prayer  meetings  will  be  the  only  places  of 
enjoyment. 

^  Question.  Do  you  care  to  say  who  your  choice  is  for 
Republican  nominee  for  President  in  1888? 

Aiiswer.  I  now  promise  that  I  will  answer  this  question 
either  in  May  or  June,  1888.  At  present  my  choice  is  not 
fixed,  and  is  liable  to  change  at  any  moment,  and  I  want 
to  leave  it  free,  so  that  it  can  change  from  time  to  time,  as 
the  circumstances  change.  I  will,  however,  tell  you  pri- 
vately that  I  think  it  will  probably  be  a  new  man,  some- 
body on  whom  the  Republicans  can  unite.  I  have  made  a 
good  many  inquiries  myself  to  find  out  who  this  man  is  to 
be,  but  in  every  instance  the  answer  has  been  determined 
by  the  location  in  which  the  gentleman  lived  who  gave  me 
the  answer.     Let  us  wait. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  Republican  party  should 
take  a  decided  stand  on  the  temperance  issue  ? 

Answer.  I  do ;  and  that  decided  stand  should  be  that 
temperance  is  an  individual  question,  something  with 
which  the  State  and  Nation  have  nothing  to  do.  Temper- 
ance is  a  thing  that  the  law  cannot  control.  You  might  as 
well  try  to  control  music,  painting,  sculpture,  or  meta- 
physics, as  the  question  of  temperance.  As  life  becomes 
more  valuable,  people  will  learn  to  take  better  care  of  it. 
There  is  something  more  to  be  desired  even  than  temper- 
ance, and  that  is  liberty.  I  do  not  believe  in  putting  out 
the  sun  because  weeds  grow.  I  should  rather  have  some 
weeds  than  go  without  wheat  and  corn.  The  Republi- 
can party  should  represent  liberty  and  individuality ;  it 
should  keep  abreast  of  the  real  spirit  of  the  age;theRepub- 


INTERVIEWS..  273 

lican  party  ought  to  be  intelligent  enough  to  know  that 
progress  has  been  marked  not  by  the  enactment   of  new 

laws,  but    by  the  repeal    of    old    ones. — Evening  Traveler,  Boston. 
October,  1886. 

HENRY  GEORGE  AND  LABOR. 

Qtiestion.  It  is  said,  Colonel  Ingersoll,  that  you  are  for 
Henry  George  ? 

Answer.  Of  course ;  I  think  it  the  duty  of  the  Republi- 
cans to  defeat  the  Democracy — a  solemn  duty — and  I 
believe  that  they  have  a  chance  to  elect  George ;  that  is  to 
say,  an  opportunity  to  take  New  York  from  their  old 
enemy.  If  the  Republicans  stand  by  George  he  will 
succeed.  All  the  Democratic  factions  are  going  to  unite  to 
beat  the  workingmen.  What  a  picture  !  Now  is  the  time 
for  the  Republicans  to  show  that  all  their  sympathies  are 
not  given  to  bankers,  corporations  and  millionaires.  They 
were  on  the  side  of  the  slave — they  gave  liberty  to  millions. 
Let  them  take  another  step  and  extend  their  hands  to  the 
sons  of  toil. 

My  heart  beats  with  those  who  bear  the  burdens  of  this 
poor  world, 

Qicestion.  Do  you  not  think  that  capital  is  entitled  to 
protection  ? 

Answer.  I  am  in  favor  of  accomplishing  all  reforms  in  a 
legal  and  orderly  way,  and  I  want  the  laboring  people  of 
this  country  to  appeal  to  the  ballot.  All  classes  and  all 
interests  must  be  content  to  abide  the  result. 

I  want  the  laboring  people  to  show  that  they  are  intelli- 
gent enough  to  stand  by  each  other.  Henry  George  is  their 
natural  leader.  Let  them  be  true  to  themselves  by  being 
true  to  him.  The  great  questions  between  capital  and 
labor  must  be  settled  peaceably.  There  is  no  excuse  for 
violence,  and  no  excuse  for  contempt  and  scorn.  No 
country  can  be  prosperous  while  the  workers  want  and  the 
idlers  waste.     Those  who   do   the  most  should  have  the 


274  INTERVIEWS. 

most.  There  is  no  civilized  country,  so  far  as  I  know,  but 
I  believe  there  will  be,  and  I  want  to  hasten  the  day  when 
the  map  of  the  world  will  give  the  boundaries  of  that 
blessed  land. 

Question.  Do  you  agree  with  George's  principles?  Do 
you  believe  in  socialism  ? 

Answer,  I  do  not  understand  that  George  is  a  Socialist 
He  is  on  the  side  of  those  that  work — so  am  I.  He  wants 
to  help  those  that  need  help — so  do  I.  The  rich  can 
take  care  of  themselves.  I  shed  no  tears  over  the  miseries 
of  capital.  I  think  of  the  men  in  mines  and  factories,  in 
huts,  hovels  and  cellars;  of  the  poor  sewing  women  ;  of 
the  poor,  the  hungry  and  the  despairing.  The  world  must 
be  made  better  through  intelligence.  I  do  not  go  with  the 
destroyers,  with  those  that  hate  the  successful,  that  hate 
the  generous,  simply  because  they  are  rich.  Wealth  is 
the  surplus  produced  by  labor,  and  the  wealth  of  the  world 
should  keep  the  world  from  want. — New  York  Herald^  OQ.\a\i^x\^'* 

3896. 

LABOR  QUESTION  AiND  SOCIALISM. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Henry  George  for 
mayor  ? 

Ajiswer.  Several  objections  have  been  urged,  not  to 
what  Mr.  George  has  done,  but  to  what  Mr.  George  has 
thought,  and  he  is  the  only  candidate  up  to  this  time 
against  whom  a  charge  of  this  character  could  be  made. 
Among  other  things,  he  seems  to  have  entertained  an  idea 
to  the  effect  that  a  few  men  should  not  own  the  entire 
earth ;  that  a  child  coming  into  the  world  has  a  right  to 
standing  room,  and  that  before  he  walks,  his  mother  has  a 
right  to  standing  room  while  she  holds  him.  He  insists 
that  if  it  were  possible  to  bottle  the  air,  and  sell  it  as  we 
do  mineral  water,  it  would  be  hardly  fair  for  the  capitalists 
of  the  world  to  embark  in  such  a  speculation,    especially 


INTERVIEWS.  275 

where  millions  were  allowed  to  die  simply  because  they 
were  not  able  to  buy  breath  at  "  pool  prices.'*  Mr.  George 
seems  to  think  that  the  time  will  come  when  capital  will 
be  intelligent  enough  and  civilized  enough  to  be  just,  and 
when  labor  will  be  intelligent  enough  and  civilized  enough 
to  take  care  of  itself.  He  has  a  dream  that  poverty  and  crime 
and  all  the  evils  that  go  hand  in  hand  with  partial  famine, 
with  lack  of  labor,  and  all  the  diseases  born  of  living  in  huts 
and  cellars,  born  of  poor  food  and  poor  clothing  and  of  bad 
habits,  will  disappear,  and  that  the  world  will  be  really  fit 
to  live  in.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  insist  that  men  ought  to 
have  more  than  twenty-three  or  twenty-four  dollars  a 
month  for  digging  coal,  and  that  they  ought  not  to  be  com- 
pelled to  spend  that  money  in  the  store  or  saloon  of  the 
proprietor  of  the  mine.  He  has  also  stated  on  several  occa- 
sions that  a  man  ought  not  to  drive  a  street  car  for  sixteen 
or  eighteen  hours  a  day — that  even  a  street-car  driver 
ought  to  have  the  privilege  now  and  then  of  seeing  his 
wife, or  at  least  one  of-  the  children,  awake.  And  he  has 
gone  so  far  as  to  say  that  a  letter-carrier  ought  not  to  work 
longer  in  each  day  for  the  United  States  than  he  would  for 
a  civilized  individual. 

To  people  that  imagine  that  this  world  is  already  per- 
fection ;  that  the  condition  of  no  one  should  be  bettered 
except  their  own,  these  ideas  seem  dangerous.  A  man  who 
has  already  amassed  a  million,  and  who  has  no  fear  for 
the  future,  and  who  says:  "I  will  employ  the  cheapest 
labor  and  make  men  work  as  long  as  they  can  possibly  en- 
dure the  toil,"  will  regard  Mr.  George  as  an  impractical 
man.  It  is  very  probable  that  all  of  us  will  be  dead  before 
all  of  the  theories  of  Mr.  George  are  put  in  practice.  Some 
of  them,  however,  may  at  some  time  benefit  mankind  ;  and 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  am  willing  to  help  hasten  the 
day,  although  it  may  not  come  while  I  live.  I  do  not 
know  that  I  agree  with  many  of  the  theories  of  Mr.  George. 


2^6  INTERVIEWS. 

I  know  that  I  do  not  agree  with  some  of  them.  But  there 
is  one  thing  in  which  I  do  agree  with  him,  and  that  is, 
in  his  effort  to  benefit  the  human  race,  in  his  effort  to  do 
away  with  some  of  the  evils  that  now  afflict  mankind.  I 
sympathize  with  him  in  his  endeavor  to  shorten  the  hours 
of  labor,  to  increase  the  well-being  of  laboring  meUf  to 
give  them  better  houses,  better  food,  and  in  every  way  to 
lighten  the  burdens  that  now  bear  upon  their  bowed  backs. 
It  may  be  that  very  little  can  be  done  by  law,  except  to 
see  that  they  are  not  absolutely  abused ;  to  see  that  the 
mines  in  which  they  work  are  supplied  with  air  and  with 
means  of  escape  in  time  of  danger  ;  to  prevent  the  deform- 
ing of  children  by  forcing  upon  them  the  labor  of  men  ;  to 
shorten  the  hours  of  toil,  and  to  give  all  laborers  certain 
liens,  above  all  other  claims,  for  their  work.  It  is  easy  to 
see  that  in  this  direction  something  may  be  done  by  law. 

QiiesHo7i.  Colonel  Ingersoll,are  3^ou  a  Socialist? 

Answer,  I  am  an  Individualist  instead  of  a  Socialist,  I 
am  a  believer  in  individuality  and  in  each  individual  tak- 
ing care  of  himself,  and  I  want  the  Government  to  do  just 
as  little  as  it  can  consistently  with  the  safety  of  the  nation, 
and  I  want  as  little  law  as  possible — onlj^  as  much  as  will 
protect  life,  reputation  and  property  by  punishing  crim- 
inals and  by  enforcing  honest  contracts.  But  if  a  govern- 
ment gives  privileges  to  a  few,  the  few  must  not  oppress 
the  many.  The  Government  has  no  right  to  bestow  any 
privilege  upon  any  man  or  upon  any  corporation,  except 
for  the  public  good.  That  which  is  a  special  privilege  to 
the  few,  should  be  a  special  benefit  to  the  many.  And 
whenever  the  privileged  few  abuse  the  privilege  so  that  it 
becomes  a  curse  to  the  many,  the  privilege,  whatever  it  is, 
should  be  withdrawn.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  enough 
to  suggest  a  remedy  for  all  the  evils  of  society.  I  doubt 
if  one  human  mind  could  take  into  consideration  the 
almost   infinite   number   of   factors   entering   into   such  a 


INTERVIEWS.  277 

problem.  And  this  fact  that  no  one  knows,  is  the  excuse 
ior  trying.  While  I  may  not  believe  that  a  certain  theory 
will  work,  still,  if  I  feel  sure  it  will  do  no  harm,  I  am  will- 
ing to  see  it  tried. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  Mr.  George  would  make  a 
good  mayor  ? 

Aiiswer,  I  presume  he  would.  He  is  a  thoughtful, 
prudent  man.  His  reputation  for  honesty  has  never,  so 
far  as  I  know,  been  called  in  question.  It  certainly  does 
not  take  a  genius  to  be  mayor  of  New  York.  If  so, 
there  have  been  some  years  when  there  was  hardly  a 
mayor.  I  take  it  that  a  clear-headed,  honest  man,  whose 
only  object  is  to  do  his  duty,  and  with  courage  enough  to 
stand  by  his  conscience,  would  make  a  good  mayor  of  New 
York  or  of  any  other  city. 

Quesiioiu  Are  you  in  sympathy  with  the  workingmen 
and  their  objects  ? 

Answer.  I  am  in  sympathy  with  laboring  men  of  all 
kinds,  whether  they  labor  with  hand  or  brain.  The 
Knights  of  Labor,  I  believe,  do  not  allow  a  lawyer  to  be- 
come a  member.  I  am  somewhat  wider  in  my  sympathies. 
No  men  in  the  world  struggle  more  heroically ;  no  men  in 
the  world  have  suffered  more,  or  carried  a  heavier  cross, 
or  worn  a  sharper  crown  of  thorns,  than  those  that  have 
produced  what  we  call  the  literature  of  our  race.  So  my 
sympathies  extend  all  the  way  from  hod-carriers  to  sculp- 
tors ;  from  well-diggers  to  astronomers.  If  the  objects  of 
the  laboring  men  are  to  improve  their  condition  without 
injuring  others ;  to  have  homes  and  firesides,  and  wives 
and  children ;  plenty  to  eat,  good  clothes  to  wear  ;  to  de- 
velop their  minds,  to  educate  their  children — in  short,  to 
become  prosperous  and  civilized,  I  sympathize  with  them, 
and  hope  they  will  succeed.  I  have  not  the  slightest  sym- 
pathy with  those  that  wish  to  accomplish  all  these  objects 
through  brute  force.  A  Nihilist  may  be  forgiven  in  Russia — • 


278  INTERVIEWS. 

may  even  be  praised  in  Russia ;  a  Socialist  may  be  forgiveb 
in  Germany ;  and  certainly  a  Home-ruler  can  be  pardonea 
in  Ireland,  but  in  the  United  States  there  is  no  place  for 
Anarchist,  Socialist  or  Dynamiter^  In  this  country  the 
political  power  has  been  fairly  divided.  Poverty  has  just 
as  many  votes  as  wealth.  No  man  can  be  so  poor  as  not 
to  have  a  ballot ;  no  man  is  rich  enough  to  have  two  ;  and 
no  man  can  buy  another  vote,  unless  somebody  is  mean 
enough  and  contemptible  enough  to  sell;  and  if  he  does 
sell  his  vote,  he  never  should  complain  about  the  laws  or 
their  administration.  So  the  foolish  and  the  wise  are  on  an 
equality,  and  the  political  power  of  this  country  is  divided 
so  that  each  man  is  a  sovereign. 

Now,  the  laboring  people  are  largely  in  the  majority  in 
this  country.  If  there  are  any  laws  oppressing  them,  they 
should  have  them  repealed.  I  want  the  laboring  people — 
and  by  the  word  "  laboring  "  now,  I  include  only  the  men 
that  they  include  by  that  word — to  unite ;  I  want  them  to 
show  that  they  have  the  intelligence  to  act  together,  and 
sense  enough  to  vote  for  a  friend.  I  want  them  to  con- 
vince both  the  other  great  parties  that  they  cannot  be  pur- 
chased. This  will  be  an  immense  step  in  the  right  direc- 
tion. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  I  should  like  to  see  the 
laboring  men  in  power,  so  that  they  would  realize  how 
little,  after  all,  can  be  done  by  law.  All  that  any  man 
should  ask,  so  far  as  the  Government  is  concerned,  is  a 
fair  chance  to  compete  with  his  neighbors.  Personally,  I 
am  for  the  abolition  of  all  special  privileges  that  are  not 
for  the  general  good.  My  principal  hope  of  the  future  is 
the  civilization  of  my  race ;  the  development  not  only  of 
the  brain,  but  of  the  heart.  I  believe  the  time  will  come 
w^hen  we  shall  stop  raising  failures,  w^hen  we  shall  know 
something  of  the  laws  governing  human  beings.  I  believe 
the  time  will  come  when  we  shall  not  produce  deformed 


INTERVIEWS.  279 

persons,  natural  criminals.  In  other  words,  I  think  the 
world  is  going  to  grow  better  and  betten  This  may  not 
happen  to  this  nation  or  to  what  we  call  our  race,  but  it 
may  happen  to  some  other  race,  and  all  that  we  do  in  the 
right  direction  hastens  that  day  and  that  race. 

Question,  Do  you  think  that  the  old  parties  are  about  to 
die? 

Answer.  It  is  very  hard  to  say.  The  country  is  not  old 
enough  for  tables  of  mortality  to  have  been  calculated  upon 
parties.  I  suppose  a  party,  like  anything  else,  has  a  period 
of  youth,  of  manhood  and  decay.  The  Democratic  party  is 
not  dead.  Some  men  grow  physically  strong  as  they  grow 
mentally  weak.  The  Democratic  party  lived  out  of  oflSce, 
and  in  disgrace,  for  twenty-five  years,  and  lived  to  elect  a 
President.  If  the  Democratic  party  could  live  on  disgrace 
for  twenty-five  years  it  now  looks  as  though  the  Republi- 
can party,  on  the  memory  of  its  glory  and  of  its  wonderful 
and  unparalleled  achievements,  might  manage  to  creep  along 

for  a  few  years  more. — New  York  World^  October  26,  1886. 

HENRY  GEORGE  AND  SOCIALISM. 

QtcesHon.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  result  of  the 
election  ? 

Answer,  I  find  many  dead  on  the  field  whose  faces  I 
recognize.  I  see  that  Morrison  has  taken  a  "  horizontal " 
position.  Free  trade  seems  to  have  received  an  exceedingly 
black  eye.  Carlisle,  in  my  judgment,  one  of  the  very  best 
men  in  Congress,  has  been  defeated  simply  because  he  is  a 
free  trader,  and  I  suppose  you  can  account  for  Kurd's 
defeat  in  the  same  way.  The  people  believe  in  protection 
although  they  generally  admit  that  the  tariff  ought  to  be 
reformed.  I  believe  in  protecting  **  infant  industries,"  but  I 
do  not  believe  in  rocking  the  cradle  when  the  infant  is  seven 
feet  high  and  wears  number  twelve  boots. 

Qicestion,  Bo  you  sympathize  with  the  Socialists,  or  do 


2«0  INTERVIEWS. 

you    think    that   the    success    of  George   would  promote 
socialism  ? 

Answer.  I  have  said  frequently  that  if  I  lived  in  Russia 
I  should  in  all  probability  be  a  Nihilist.  I  can  conceive  of 
no  government  that  would  not  be  as  good  as  that  of  Russia, 
and  I  would  consider  no  government  far  preferable  to  that 
government.  Any  possible  state  of  anarchy  is  better  than 
organized  crime,  because  in  the  chaos  of  anarchy  justice  may 
be  done  by  accident,  but  in  a  government  organized  for  the 
perpetuation  of  slaver}^  and  for  the  purpose  of  crushing 
out  of  the  human  brain  every  noble  thought,  justice  does 
not  live.  In  Germany  I  probably  would  be  a  Socialist — to 
this  extent,  that  I  would  want  the  political  power  honestly 
divided  among  the  people.  I  can  conceive  of  no  circum- 
stances in  which  I  could  support  Bismarck.  I  regard  Bis- 
marck as  a  projection  of  the  Middle  Ages,  as  a  shadow  that 
has  been  thrown  across  the  sunlight  of  modern  civilization, 
and  in  that  shadow  grow  all  the  bloodless  crimes.  Now,  in 
Ireland,  of  course,  I  believe  in  home  rule.  In  this  country 
I  am  an  Individualist.  The  political  power  here  is  equally 
divided.  Poverty  and  wealth  have  the  same  power  at  the 
ballot-box.  Intelligence  and  ignorance  are  on  an  equality 
here,  simply  because  all  men  have  a  certain  interest  in  the 
government  where  they  live.  In  this  country  there  is  no 
excuse  for  nihilism  or  socialism.  I  hate  above  all  things 
the  tyranny  of  a  government.  I  do  not  want  a  government 
to  send  a  policeman  along  with  me  to  keep  me  from  buying 
eleven  eggs  for  a  dozen.  I  will  take  care  of  myself.  I 
want  the  people  to  do  everything  they  can  do,  and  the  Gov- 
ernment to  keep  its  hands  off,  because  if  the  Government 
attends  to  all  these  matters  the  people  lose  manhood,  and 
in  a  little  while  become  serfs,  and  there  will  arise  some 
strong  mind  and  some  powerful  hand  that  will  reduce  them 
to  actual  slavery.  So  I  am  in  favor  of  personal  liberty  to 
the  largest  extent.    Whenever  the  Government  grants  privi- 


INTERVIEWS.  281 

leges  to  the  few,  these  privileges  should  be  for  the  benefit  of 
the  many,  and  when  they  cease  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the 
many,  they  should  be  taken  from  the  few  and  used  by  the 
government  itself  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people.  And 
I  want  to  see  in  this  country  the  Government  so  adminis- 
tered that  justice  will  be  done  to  all  as  nearly  as  human 
institutions  can  produce  such  a  results  Now,  I  understand 
that  in  any  state  of  society  there  will  be  failures.  We  have 
failures  among  the  working  people.  We  have  had  some 
failures  in  Congress,  I  will  not  mention  the  names,  because 
your  space  is  limited.  There  have  been  failures  in  the 
pulpit,  at  the  bar ;  in  fact,  in  every  pursuit  of  life  you  will 
find  men  who  cannot  make  a  living  in  that  direction.  I 
presume  we  shall  have  failures  with  us  for  a  great  while ;  at 
least  until  the  establishment  of  the  religion  of  the  body, 
when  we  shall  cease  to  produce  failures  ;  and  I  have  faith 
enough  in  the  human  race  to  believe  that  that  time  will 
come,  but  I  do  not  expect  it  during  my  life. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  income  tax  as  a  step 
toward  the  accomplishment  of  what  you  desire  ? 

A?iswer.  There  are  some  objections  to  an  income  tax. 
First,  the  espionage  that  it  produces  on  the  part  of  the 
Government,  Second,  the  amount  of  perjury  that  it  annually 
produces.  Men  hate  to  have  their  business  inquired  into- if 
they  are  not  doing  well.  They  often  pay  a  very  large  tax 
to  make  their  creditors  think  they  are  prosperous.  Others 
by  covering  up,  avoid  the  tax.  But  I  will  say  this  with 
regard  to  taxation :  The  great  desideratum  is  stability.  If 
we  tax  only  the  land,  and  that  were  the  only  tax,  in  a  little 
w^hile  every  other  thing,  and  the  value  of  every  other  thing, 
would  adjust  itself  in  relation  to  that  tax,  and  perfect  justice 
would  be  the  result.  That  is  to  say,  if  it  were  stable  long 
enough  the  burden  w^ould  finally  fall  upon  the  right  backs 
in  every  department.  The  trouble  with  taxation  is  that  it  is 
continually  changing — not  waiting  for  the  adjustment  that 


282  INTERVIEWS. 

will  naturally  follow  provided  it  is  stable.  I  think  tlie  end, 
so  far  as  land  is  concerned,  could  be  reached  by  cumulative 
taxation — that  is  to  say,  a  man  with  a  certain  amount  of 
land  paying  a  very  small  per  cent.,  with  more  land,  an  in- 
creased per  cent.,  and  let  that  per  cent,  increase  rapidly 
enough  so  that  no  man  could  afford  to  hold  land  that  he  did 
not  have  a  use  for.  So  I  believe  in  cumulative  taxation 
with  regard  to  any  kind  of  wealth.  Let  a  man  worth  ten 
million  dollars  pay  a  greater  per  cent,  than  one  worth  one 
hundred  thousand,  because  he  is  able  to  pay  it.  The  other 
day  a  man  was  talking  to  me  about  having  the  dead  pay  the 
expenses  of  the  Government ;  that  whenever  a  man  died 
worth  say  five  million  dollars,  one  million  should  go  to  the 
Government;  that  if  he  died  worth  ten  million  dollars, 
three  millions  should  go  to  the  Government;  if  he  died 
worth  twenty  million  dollars,  eight  million  should  go  to  the 
Government,  and  so  on.  He  said  that  in  this  way  the 
expenses  of  the  Government  could  be  borne  by  the  dead. 
I  should  be  in  favor  of  cumulative  taxation  upon  legacies — 
the  greater  the  legacy,  the  greater  the  per  cent,  of  tax- 
ation. 

But,  of  course,  I  am  not  foolish  enough  to  suppose  that  I 
understand  these  questions.  I  am  giving  you  a  few  guesses. 
My  only  desire  is  to  guess  right.  I  want  to  see  the  people 
of  this  world  live  for  this  world,  and  I  hope  the  time  will 
come  when  a  civilized  man  will  understand  that  he  cannot 
be  perfectly  happy  while  anybody  else  is  miserable;  that  a 
perfectly  civilized  man  could  not  enjoy  a  dinner  knowing 
that  others  were  starving ;  that  he  could  not  enjoy  the  rich- 
est robes  if  he  knew  that  some  of  his  fellow-men  in  rags  and 
tatters  were  shivering  in  the  blast.  In  other  words,  I  want 
to  carry  out  the  idea  here  that  I  have  so  frequently  uttered 
with  regard  to  the  other  world  ;  that  is,  that  no  gentleman 
angel  could  be  perfectly  happy  knowing  that  somebody  else 
was  in  hell. 


INTERVIEWS.  285 

Question.  What  are  the  chances  for  the  Republican  party 
in  1888  ? 

Answer.  If  it  will  sympathize  with  the  toilers,  as  it  did  with 
the  slaves ;  if  it  will  side  with  the  needy ;  if  it  will  only  take 
the  right  side  it  will  elect  the  next  President,  The  poor 
should  not  resort  to  violence ;  the  rich  should  appeal  to  the 
intelligence  of  the  working  people.  These  questions  can- 
not be  settled  by  envy  and  scorn.  The  motto  of  both 
parties  should  be :  "  Come,  let  us  reason  together."  The 
Republican  party  was  the  grandest  organization  that  ever 
existed.  It  was  brave,  intelligent  and  just.  It  sincerely 
loved  the  right.  A  certificate  of  membership  was  a  patent 
of  nobility.  If  it  will  only  stand  by  the  right  again,  its  vic- 
torious banner  will  float  over  all  the  intelligent  sons  of  toil. 

^The  TimeSy  Chicago,  Illinois,  Norember  4,  I8860 

REPLY  TO  THE  REV.  B.  F.  MORSE.* 

This  aquatic  or  web-footed  theologian  who  expects  to  go 
to  heaven  by  diving  is  not  worth  answering.  Nothing  can 
be  more  idiotic  than  to  answer  an  argument  by  saying  he 
who  makes  it  does  not  believe  it.  Belief  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  cogency  or  worth  of  an  argument.  There  is  an- 
other thing.  This  man,  or  rather  this  minister,  says  that  I 
attacked  Christianity  simply  to  make  money.  Is  it  possible 
that,  after  preachers  have  had  the  field  for  eighteen  hun- 
dred years,  the  way  to  make  money  is  to  attack  the  clergy. 
Is  this  intended  as  a  slander  against  me  or  the  ministers  ? 

The  trouble  is  that  my  arguments  cannot  be  answered. 
All  the  preachers  in  the  world  cannot  prove  that  slavery  is 
better  than  liberty.     They  cannot  show  that  all  have  not  an 

*At  the  usual  weekly  meeting  of  the  Baptist  ministers  at  the  Publication  Rooms  yes- 
terday, the  Rev.  Dr.  B.  F.  Morse  read  an  essay  on  "  Christianity  vs.  Materialism."  His 
contention  was  that  all  nature  showed  that  design,  not  evolution,  was  its  origin. 

In  his  concluding  remarks  Dr.  Morse  said  that  he  knew  from  unquestionable  authority, 
that  Robert  G.  IngersoU  did  not  believe  what  he  uttered  in  his  lectures,  and  that  to  get 
out  of  a  financial  embarrassment  he  looked  around  for  a  money  making  scheme  that 
could  be  put  into  immediate  execution.  To  lecture  against  Chriatianity  was  the  moat 
rapid  way  of  giving  him  the  needed  cash  and,  what  was  quite  as  acceptable  to  him,  at  the 
ftame  time,  notoriety. 


284  INTERVIEWS. 

equal  right  to  think.  They  cannot  show  that  all  have  not 
an  equal  right  to  express  their  thoughts.  They  cannot 
show  that  a  decent  God  will  punish  a  decent  man  for  mak- 
ing the  best  guess  he  can.     This  is  all  there  is  about  it. — 

The  Herald,  New  York,  December  14,  1886. 

INGERSOLL  ON  McGLYNN. 

The  attitude  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn's  case  is  consistent  with  the  history  and  constitution 
of  the  Catholic  Church — perfectly  consistent  with  its  ends, 
its  objects,  and  its  means — and  just  as  perfectly  inconsist- 
ent with  intellectual  liberty  and  the  real  civilization  of  the 
human  race. 

When  a  man  becomes  a  Catholic  priest,  he  has  been 
convinced  that  he  ought  not  to  think  for  himself  upon 
religious  questions.  He  has  become  convinced  that  the 
church  is  the  only  teacher — that  he  has  a  right  to  think 
only  to  enforce  its  teachings.  From  that  moment  he  is  a 
moral  machine.  The  chief  engineer  resides  at  Rome,  and 
he  gives  his  orders  through  certain  assistant  engineers  until 
the  one  is  reached  who  turns  the  crank,  and  the  machine 
has  nothing  to  do  one  way  or  the  other.  This  machine  is 
paid  for  giving  up  his  liberty  by  having  machines  under 
him  who  have  also  given  up  theirs.  While  somebody  else 
turns  his  crank,  he  has  the  pleasure  of  turning  a  crank  be- 
longing to  somebody  below  him. 

Of  course,  the  Catholic  Church  is  supposed  to  be  the  only 
perfect  institution  on  earth.  All  others  are  not  only  imper- 
fect, but  unnecessary^  All  others  have  been  made  either 
by  man,  or  by  the  Devil,  or  by  a  partnership,  and  con- 
sequently cannot  be  depended  upon  for  the  civilization  of 
man. 

The  Catholic  Church  gets  its  power  directly  from  God, 
and  is  the  only  institution  now  in  the  world  founded  by  God. 
There  was  never  any  other,  so  far  as  I  know,  except  polyg- 


INTERVIEWS.  285 

amy  and  slavery  and  a  crude  kind  of  monarchy,  and  they 
have  been,  for  the  most  part,  abolished. 

The  Catholic  Church  must  be  true  to  itself.  It  must  claim 
everything,  and  get  what  it  can.  It  alone  is  infallible.  It 
alone  has  all  the  wisdom  of  this  world.  It  alone  has  the 
right  to  exist.  All  other  interests  are  secondary.  To  be  a 
Catholic  is  of  the  first  importance.  Human  liberty  is  noth- 
ing. Wealth,  position,  food,  clothing,  reputation,  happi- 
ness— all  these  are  less  than  worthless  compared  with  what 
the  Catholic  Church  promises  to  the  man  who  will  throw  all 
these  away. 

A  priest  must  preach  what  his  bishop  tells  him.  A  bishop 
must  preach  what  his  archbishop  tells  him.  The  pope  must 
preach  what  he  says  God  tells  him. 

Dr.  McGlynn  cannot  make  a  compromise  with  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  never  compromises  when  it  is  in  the  majoritj^ 
I  do  not  mean  by  this  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  worse 
than  any  other.  All  are  alike  in  this  regard.  Every  sect, 
no  matter  how  insignificant ;  every  church,  no  matter  how 
powerful,  asks  precisely  the  same  thing  from  every  member 
— that  is  to  say,  a  surrender  of  intellectual  freedom.  The 
Catholic  Church  wants  the  same  as  the  Baptist,  the  Presb)^- 
terian,  and  the  Methodist — it  wants  the  whole  earth.  It  is 
ambitious  to  be  the  one  supreme  power.  It  hopes  to  see  the 
world  upon  its  knees,  with  all  its  tongues  thrust  out  for 
w^afers.  It  has  the  arrogance  of  humility  and  the  ferocity 
of  universal  forgiveness.  In  this  respect  it  resembles  every 
other  sect.     Every  religion  is  a  system  of  slavery. 

Of  course,  the  religionists  say  that  they  do  not  believe  in 
persecution ;  that  they  do  not  believe  in  burning  and  hang- 
ing and  whipping  or  loading  with  chains  a  man  simply  be- 
cause he  is  an  Infidel.  They  are  willing  to  leave  all  this 
with  God,  knowing  that  a  being  of  infinite  goodness  will 
inflict  all  these  horrors  and  tortures  upon  an  honest  man 
who  differs  with  the  churcho 


286  INTERVIEWS. 

la  case  Dn  McGlynn  is  deprived  of  his  priestly  functions, 
it  is  hard  to  say  what  effect  it  will  have  upon  his  church 
and  the  labor  party  in  this  country. 

So  long  as  a  man  believes  that  a  church  has  eternal  joy 
in  store  for  him,  so  long  as  he  believes  that  a  church  holds 
within  its  hand  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell,  it  will  be  hard 
to  make  him  trade  off  the  hope  of  everlasting  happiness  for 
a  few  good  clothes  and  a  little  good  food  and  higher  wages 
here.  He  finally  thinks  that,  after  all,  he  had  better  work 
for  less  and  go  a  little  hungry,  and  be  an  angel  forever. 

I  hope,  however,  that  a  good  many  people  who  have  been 
supporting  the  Catholic  Church  by  giving  tithes  of  the 
wages  of  weariness  will  see,  and  clearly  see,  that  Catholi- 
cism is  not  their  friend ;  that  the  church  cannot  and  will  not 
support  them ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  must  support  the 
church.  I  hope  they  will  see  that  all  the  prayers  have  to  be 
paid  for,  although  not  one  has  ever  been  answered.  I  hope 
they  will  perceive  that  the  church  is  on  the  side  of  wealth 
and  power,  that  the  mitre  is  the  friend  of  the  crown,  that 
the  altar  is  the  sworn  brother  of  the  throne.  I  hope  they 
will  finally  know  that  the  church  cares  infinitely  more  for 
the  money  of  the  millionaire  than  for  the  souls  of  the  poor. 
Of  course,  there  are  thousands  of  individual  exceptions. 
I  am  speaking  of  the  church  as  an  institution,  as  a  corpora- 
tion— and  when  I  say  the  church,  I  include  all  churches. 
It  is  said  of  corporations  in  general,  that  they  have  no  soul, 
and  it  may  truthfully  be  said  of  the  church  that  it  has  less 
than  any  other.  It  lives  on  alms.  It  gives  nothing  for  what 
it  gets.  It  has  no  sympathy.  Beggars  never  weep  over  the 
misfortunes  of  other  beggars. 

Nothing  could  give  me  more  pleasure  than  to  see  the 
Catholic  Church  on  the  side  of  human  freedom;  nothing 
more  pleasure  than  to  see  the  Catholics  of  the  world — those 
who  work  and  weep  and  toil — sensible  enough  to  know  that 
all  the  money  paid  for  superstition  is  worse  than  lost     I 


INTERVIEWS.  287 

wish  they  could  see  that  the  counting  of  beads,  and  the  say- 
ing of  prayers  and  celebrating  of  masses,  and  all  the 
kneelings  and  censer-swingings  and  fastings  and  bell- 
ringing,  amount  to  less  than  nothing — that  all  these  things 
tend  only  to  the  degradation  of  mankind.  It  is  hard,  I 
know,  to  find  an  antidote  for  a  poison  that  was  mingled  with 
a  mother's  milk. 

The  laboring  masses,  so  far  as  the  Catholics  are  con- 
cerned, are  filled  with  awe  and  wonder  and  fear  about  the 
church.  This  fear  began  to  grow  while  they  were  being 
rocked  in  their  cradles,  and  they  still  imagine  that  the 
church  has  some  mysterious  power ;  that  it  is  in  direct  com- 
munication with  some  infinite  personality  that  could,  if  it 
desired,  strike  them  dead,  or  damn  their  souls  forever.  Per- 
sons who  have  no  such  belief,  who  care  nothing  for  popes 
or  priests  or  churches  or  heavens  or  hells  or  devils  or 
gods,  have  very  little  idea  of  the  power  of  fear. 

The  old  dogmas  filled  the  brain  with  strange  monsters. 
The  soul  of  the  orthodox  Christian  gropes  and  wanders  and 
crawls  in  a  kind  of  dungeon,  where  the  strained  eyes  see 
fearful  shapes,  and  the  frightened  flesh  shrinks  from  the 
touch  of  serpents. 

The  good  part  of  Christianity — that  is  to  say,  kindness, 
morality — will  never  go  down.  The  cruel  part  ought  to  go 
down.  And  by  the  cruel  part  I  mean  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment — of  allowing  the  good  to  suffer  for  the  bad — 
allowing  innocence  to  pay  the  debt  of  guilt.  So  the  foolish 
part  of  Christianity — that  is  to  say,  the  miraculous — will  go 
down.  The  absurd  part  must  perish.  But  there  will  be  no 
war  about  it  as  there  was  in  France.  Nobody  believes 
enough  in  the  foolish  part  of  Christianity  now  to  fight  for 
it.  Nobody  believes  with  intensity  enough  in  miracles  to 
shoulder  a  musket.  There  is  probably  not  a  Christian  in  New 
York  willing  to  fight  for  any  story,  no  matter  if  the  story 
is  so  old  that  it  is  covered  with  moss.     No  mentally  brave 


288  INTERVIEWS. 

and  intelligent  man  believes  in  miracles,  and  no  intelligent 
man  cares  whether  there  was  a  miracle  or  not,  for  the  rea- 
son that  every  intelligent  man  knows  that  the  miiaculous 
has  no  possible  connection  with  the  moral.  "Thou  shalt 
not  steai,"  is  just  as  good  a  commandment  if  it  should  turn 
out  that  the  flood  was  a  drouth.  "  Thou  shalt  not  murder," 
is  a  good  and  just  and  righteous  law,  and  whether  any 
particular  miracle  was  ever  performed  or  not  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  case.  There  is  no  possible  relation  between 
these  things. 

I  am  on  the  side  not  only  of  the  physically  oppressed,  but 
of  the  mentally  oppressed.  I  hate  those  who  put  lashes  on 
the  body,  and  I  despise  those  who  put  the  soul  in  chains. 
In  other  words,  I  am  in  favor  of  liberty.  I  do  not  wish  that 
any  man  should  be  the  slave  of  his  fellow-men,  or  that  the 
human  race  should  be  the  slaves  of  any  god,  real  or  imagin- 
ary. Man  has  the  right  to  think  for  himself,  to  work  for 
himself,  to  take  care  of  himself,  to  get  bread  for  himself,  to 
get  a  home  for  himself.  He  has  a  right  to  his  own  opinion 
about  God,  and  heaven  and  hell ;  the  right  to  learn  any  art 
or  mystery  or  trade;  the  right  to  work  for  whom  he  will,  for 
what  he  will,  and  when  he  will. 

The  world  belongs  to  the  human  race.  There  is  to  be  no 
war  in  this  country  on  religious  opinions,  except  a  war  of 
words — a  conflict  of  thoughts,  of  facts ;  and  in  that  conflict 
the  hosts  of  superstition  will  go  down.  They  may  not  be 
defeated  to-day,  or  to-morrow,  or  next  year,  or  during 
this  century,  but  they  are  growing  weaker  day  by  day. 

This  priest,  McGlynn,  has  the  courage  to  stand  up  against 
the  propaganda.  What  would  have  been  his  fate  a  few 
years  ago  ?  What  would  have  happened  to  him  in  Spain,  in 
Portugal,  in  Italy — in  any  other  country  that  was  Catholic 
— only  a  few  years  ago  ?  Yet  he  stands  here  in  New  York, 
he  refuses  to  obey  God's  vicegerent;  he  freely  gives  his 
mind  to  an  archbishop ;  he  holds  the  holy  Inquisition  in  con- 


INTERVIEWS.  289 

tittipt.  He  has  done  a  great  thing.  He  is  undoubtedly  an 
honest  man.  He  never  should  have  been  a  Catholic.  He 
has  no  business  in  that  church.  He  has  ideas  of  his  own — 
theories,  and  seems  to  be  governed  by  principles.  The 
Catholic  Church  is  not  his  place.  If  he  remains,  he  must 
submit,  he  must  kneel  in  the  humility  of  abjectness;  he 
must  receive  on  the  back  of  his  independence  the  lashes  of 
the  church.  If  he  remains,  he  must  ask  the  forgiveness  of 
slaves  for  having  been  a  man.  If  he  refuses  to  submit,  the 
church  will  not  have  him.  He  will  be  driven  to  take  his 
choice — to  remain  a  member,  humiliated,  shunned,  or  go 
out  into  the  great,  free  world  a  citizen  of  the  Republic,  w4th 
the  rights,  responsibilities,  and  duties  of  an  American  citizen. 

I  believe  that  Dr.  McGlynn  is  an  honest  man,  and  that 
he  really  believes  in  the  land  theories  of  Mr.  George.  I 
have  no  confidence  in  his  theories,  but  I  have  confidence 
that  he  is  actuated  by  the  best  and  noblest  motives. 

Question.  Are  you  to  go  on  the  lecture  platform  again  ? 

Answer.  I  expect  to  after  a  while.  I  am  now  waiting  for 
the  church  to  catch  up.  I  got  so  far  ahead  that  I  began 
almost  to  sympathize  with  the  clergy.  They  looked  so  help- 
less and  talked  in  such  a  weak,  wandering,  and  wobbling 
kind  of  way  that  I  felt  as  though  I  had  been  cruel.  From 
the  papers  I  see  that  they  are  busy  trying  to  find  out  who 
the  wife  of  Cain  was.  I  see  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Robinson,  of 
New  York,  is  now  wrestling  with  that  problem.  He  begins 
to  be  in  doubt  whether  Adam  was  the  first  man,  whether 
Eve  was  the  first  woman;  suspects  that  there  were  other 
races,  and  that  Cain  did  not  marry  his  sister,  but  somebody 
else's  sister,  and  that  the  somebody  else  was  not  Cain's 
brother.  One  can  hardly  over-estimate  the  importance  of 
these  questions,  they  have  such  a  direct  bearing  on  the 
progress  of  the  world.  If  it  should  turn  out  that  Adam  was 
the  first  man,  or  that  he  was  not  the  first  man,  something 
might  happen — I  am  not  prepared  to  say  what,  but  it  might. 


290  INTERVIEWS. 

It  is  a  curious  kind  of  a  spectacle  to  see  a  few  hundred 
people  paying  a  few  thousand  dollars  a  year  for  the  purpose 
of  hearing  these  great  problems  discussed:  "Was  Adam  the 
first  man?  "  "  Who  was  Cain's  wife  ?  "  "  Has  anyone  seen  a 
map  of  the  land  of  Nod  ?  "  "  Where  are  the  four  rivers  that 
ran  murmuring  through  the  groves  of  Paradise?"  *'Who 
was  the  snake?  How  did  he  walk?  What  language  did 
he  speak?"  This  turns  a  church  into  a  kind  of  nursery, 
makes  a  cradle  of  each  pew,  and  gives  to  each  member  a 
rattle  with  which  he  can  amuse  what  he  calls  his  mind. 

The  great  theologians  of  Andover — the  gentlemen  who 
wear  the  brass  collars  furnished  by  the  dead  founder — have 
been  disputing  among  themselves  as  to  what  is  to  become  of 
the  heathen  who  fortunately  died  before  meeting  any  mis- 
sionary from  that  institution.  One  can  almost  afford  to  be 
damned  hereafter  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  the  dogmas  of 
Andover  here.  Nothing  more  absurd  and  childish  has  ever 
happened — not  in  the  intellectual,  but  in  the  theological 
world. 

There  is  no  need  of  the  Freethinkers  saying  anything  at 
present.  The  work  is  being  done  by  the  church  members 
themselves.  They  are  beginning  to  ask  questions  of  the 
clergy.  They  are  getting  tired  of  the  old  ideas — tired  of 
the  consolations  of  eternal  pain — tired  of  hearing  about  hell 
— tired  of  hearing  the  Bible  quoted  or  talked  about — tired  of 
the  scheme  of  redemption — tired  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  barbarous  records  of  a  barbarous  people 
— tired  of  the  patriarchs  and  prophets — tired  of  Daniel  and 
the  goats  with  three  horns,  and  the  image  with  the  clay  feet, 
and  the  little  stone  that  rolled  down  hill — tired  of  the  mud 
man  and  the  rib  woman — tired  of  the  flood  of  Noah,  of 
the  astronomy  of  Joshua,  the  geology  of  Moses — tired  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles  and  Lamentations — tired  of  the  lachry- 
mose Jeremiah — tired  of  the  monstrous,  the  malicious,  and 
the  miraculous.     In  short,  they   are  beginning  to  think. 


INTERVIEWS.  291 

They  have  bowed  their  necks  to  the  yoke  of  ignorance  and 
fear  and  impudence  and  superstition,  until  they  are  weary. 
They  long  to  be  free.  They  are  tired  of  the  services— tired 
of  the  meaningless  prayers — tired  of  hearing  each  other  say, 
"  Hear  us,  good  Lord  " — tired  of  the  texts,  tired  of  the  ser- 
mons, tired  of  the  lies  about  spontaneous  combustion  as  a 
punishment  for  blasphemy,  tired  of  the  bells,  and  they  long 
to  hear  the  doxology  of  superstition.  They  long  to  have 
Common  Sente  lift  its  hands  in  benediction  and  dismiss  the 

COQgVQgQtioUv—^fOO&fyn  Citizen^  April,  1886. 

TRIAL  OF  THE  CHICAGO  ANARCHISTS. 

QuesHon.  What  do  you  think  of  the  trial  of  the  Anarchists 
and  their  chances  for  a  new  trial  ? 

Ansvptr.  I  have  paid  some  attention  to  the  evidence  and 
to  the  rulings  of  the  court,  and  I  have  read  the  opinion  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  in  which  the  conviction  is 
affirmed.  Of  course  these  men  were  tried  during  a  period 
of  great  excitement — tried  when  the  press  demanded  their 
conviction — when  it  was  asserted  that  society  was  on  the 
edge  of  destruction  unless  these  men  were  hanged.  Under 
such  circumstances,  it  is  not  easy  to  have  a  fair  and  impar- 
tial trial.  A  judge  should  either  sit  beyond  the  reach  of 
prejudice,  in  some  calm  that  storms  cannot  invade,  or  he 
should  be  a  kind  of  oak  so  that  before  any  blast  he  would 
stand  erect.  It  is  hard  to  find  such  a  place  as  I  have  sug- 
gested, and  not  easy  to  find  such  a  man.  We  are  all  in- 
fluenced more  or  less  by  our  surroundings,  by  the  demands 
and  opinions  and  feelings  and  prejudices  of  our  fellow- 
citizens.  There  is  a  personality  made  up  of  many  individ- 
uals known  as  society.  This  personality  has  prejudices 
like  an  individual.  It  often  becomes  enraged,  acts  without 
the  slightest  sense,  and  repents  at  its  leisure.  It  is  hard 
to  reason  with  a  mob  whether  organized  or  disorganized, 
whether  acting  in  the  name  of  the  law  or  of  simple  brute 


292  INTERVIEWS. 

force.  But  in  any  case,  where  people  refuse  to  be  governed 
by  reason,  they  become  a  mob. 

Question.  Do  you  not  think  that  these  men  had  a  fair 
trial? 

Answer.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  court  endeavoied  to 
be  fair — no  doubt  that  Judge  Gary  is  a  perfectly  honest, 
upright  man,  but  I  think  his  instructions  were  wrong.  He 
instructed  the  jury  to  the  effect  that  where  men  have  talked 
in  a  certain  way,  and  where  the  jury  believed  that  the 
result  of  such  talk  might  be  the  commission  of  a  crime, 
that  such  men  are  responsible  for  that  crime.  Of  course, 
there  is  neither  law  nor  sense  in  an  instruction  like  this.  I 
hold  that  it  must  have  been  the  intention  of  the  man  making 
the  remark,  or  publishing  the  article,  or  doing  the  thing — it 
must  have  been  his  intention  that  the  crime  should  be  com- 
mitted. Men  differ  as  to  the  effect  of  words,  and  a  man  may 
say  a  thing  with  the  best  intentions  the  result  of  which  is  a 
crime,  and  he  may  say  a  thing  with  the  worst  of  intentions 
and  the  result  may  not  be  a  crime.  The  Supreme  Court  of 
Illinois  seemed  to  have  admitted  that  the  instruction  was 
wrong,  but  took  the  ground  that  it  made  no  difference  with 
the  verdict.  This  is  a  dangerous  course  for  the  court  of  last 
resort  to  pursue;  neither  is  it  very  complimentary  to  the 
judge  who  tried  the  case,  that  his  instructions  had  no 
effect  upon  the  jury.  Under  the  instructions  of  the  court 
below,  any  man  who  had  been  arrested  with  the  seven 
Anarchists  and  of  whom  it  could  be  proved  that  he  ever 
said  a  word  in  favor  of  any  change  in  government,  or  of 
other  peculiar  ideas,  no  matter  whether  he  knew  of  the 
meeting  at  the  Haymarket  or  not,  would  have  been  con- 
victed. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  defendant  Fielden  never  intend- 
ed to  harm  a  human  being.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  evi- 
dence shows  that  he  was  making  a  speech  in  favor  of 
peace  at  the  time  of  the  occurrence.     The  evidence  also 


INTERVIEWS.  593 

shows  that  he  was  an  exceedingly  honest,  industrious,  and 
a  very  poor  and  philanthropic  man. 

QiLestio7i.  Do  you  then  uphold  the  Anarchists  ? 

Answer.  Certainly  not.  There  is  no  place  in  this  country 
for  the  Anarchist.  The  source  of  power  here  is  the  people, 
and  to  attack  the  political  power  is  to  attack  the  people.  If 
the  laws  are  oppressive,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  oppressed.  If 
the  laws  touch  the  poor  and  leave  them  without  redress,  it 
is  the  fault  of  the  poor.  They  are  in  a  majority.  The  men 
who  work  for  their  living  are  the  very  men  who  have  the 
power  to  make  every  law  that  is  made  in  the  United  States. 
There  is  no  excuse  for  any  resort  to  violence  in  this 
country.  The  boycotting  by  trades  unions  and  by  labor 
organizations  is  all  wrong.  Let  them  resort  to  legal  meth- 
ods and  to  no  other.  I  have  not  the  slightest  sympathy 
with  the  methods  that  have  been  pursued  by  Anarchists,  or 
by  Socialists,  or  by  any  other  class  that  has  resorted  to  force 
or  intimidation.  The  ballot-box  is  the  place  to  assemble. 
The  will  of  the  people  can  be  made  known  in  that  way,  and 
their  will  can  be  executed.  At  the  same  time,  I  think  I 
understand  what  has  produced  the  Anarchist,  the  Socialist 
and  the  agitator.  In  the  old  country,  a  laboring  man, 
poorly  clad,  without  quite  enough  to  eat,  with  a  wife  in 
rags,  with  a  few  children  asking  for  bread — this  laboring 
man  sees  the  idle  enjoying  every  luxury  of  this  life;  he  sees 
on  the  breast  of  '*  my  lady  "  a  bonfire  of  diamonds;  he  sees 
**  my  lord"  riding  in  his  park;  he  sees  thousands  of  people 
vv^ho  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave  do  no  useful  act;  add 
nothing  to  the  intellectual  or  the  physical  wealth  of  the 
world ;  he  sees  labor  living  in  the  tenement  house,  in  the 
hut ;  idleness  and  nobility  in  the  mansion  and  the  palace ; 
the  poor  man  a  trespasser  everywhere  except  upon  the 
street,  where  he  is  told  to  ''  move  on,"  and  in  the  dusty 
highways  of  the  country.  That  man  naturally  hates  the 
government — the  government  oJ_  the  few,  the  government 


294  INTERVIEWS. 

that  lives  on  the  unpaid  labor  of  the  many,  the  government 
that  takes  the  child  from  the  parents,  and  puts  him  in  the 
army  to  fight  the  child  of  another  poor  man  and  woman  in 
some  other  country.  These  Anarchists,  these  Socialists, 
these  agitators,  have  been  naturally  produced.  All  the 
things  of  which  I  have  spoken  sow  in  the  breast  of  poverty 
the  seeds  of  hatred  and  revolution.  These  poor  men, 
hunted  by  the  officers  of  the  law,  cornered,  captured, 
imprisoned,  excite  the  sympathy  of  other  poor  men,  and  if 
some  are  dragged  to  the  gallows  and  hanged,  or  beheaded 
by  the  guillotine,  they  become  saints  and  martyrs,  and  those 
who  sympathize  with  them  feel  that  they  have  the  power, 
and  only  the  power  of  hatred — the  power  of  riot,  of  destruc- 
tion— the  power  of  the  torch,  of  revolution,  that  is  to  say, 
of  chaos  and  anarchy.  The  injustice  of  the  higher  classes 
makes  the  lower  criminal.  Then  there  is  another  thing. 
The  misery  of  the  poor  excites  in  many  noble  breasts 
sympathy,  and  the  men  who  thus  sympathize  wish  to  better 
the  condition  of  their  fellows.  At  first  they  depend  upon 
reason,  upon  calling  the  attention  of  the  educated  and  power- 
ful to  the  miseries  of  the  poor.  Nothing  happens,  no  result 
follows.  The  Juggernaut  of  society  moves  on,  and  the 
wretches  are  still  crushed  beneath  the  great  wheels.  These 
men  who  are  really  good  at  first,  filled  with  sympathy,  now 
become  indignant — they  are  malicious,  then  destructive  and 
criminal.  I  do  not  sympathize  with  these  methods,  but 
I  do  sympathize  with  the  general  object  that  all  good  and 
generous  people  seek  to  accomplish — namely,  to  better  the 
condition  of  the  human  race.  Only  the  other  day,  at 
Boston,  I  said  that  we  ought  to  take  into  consideration  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  Anarchists  were  reared ; 
that  we  ought  to  know  that  every  man  is  necessarily  pro- 
duced ;  that  man  is  what  he  is,  not  by  accident,  but  neces- 
sity; that  society  raises  its  own  criminals — that  it  plows 
the  soil  and  cultivates  and  harvests  the  crop.     And  it  was 


INTERVIEWS.  295 

telegraphed  that  I  had  defended  anarchy.  Nothing  was 
ever  further  from  my  mind.  There  is  no  place,  as  I  said 
before,  for  anarchy  in  the  United  States.  In  Russia  it  is 
another  question;  in  Germany  another  question.  Every 
country  that  is  governed  by  the  one  man,  or  governed  by 
the  few,  is  the  victim  of  anarchy.  That  is  anarchy.  That 
is  the  worst  possible  form  of  socialism.  The  definition  of 
socialism  given  by  its  bitterest  enemy  is,  that  idlers  wish  to 
live  on  the  labor  and  on  the  money  of  others.  Is  not  this 
definition— a  definition  given  in  hatred — a  perfect  definition 
of  every  monarchy  and  of  nearly  every  government  in  the 
world?  That  is  to  say :  The  idle  few  live  on  the  labor  and 
the  money  of  others. 

Question.  Will  the  Supreme  Court  take  cognizance  of 
this  case  and  prevent  the  execution  of  the  judgment  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  say.  At  the 
same  time,  judging  from  the  action  of  Justice  Miller  in  the 
case  of  The  People  vs.  Maxwell,  it  seems  probable  that  the 
Supreme  Court  may  interfere,  but  I  have  not  examined  the 
question  sufficiently  to  form  an  opinion.  My  feeling  about 
the  whole  matter  is  this :  That  it  will  not  tend  to  answer 
the  ideas  advanced  by  these  men,  to  hang  them.  Their 
execution  will  excite  sympathy  among  thousands  and 
thousands  of  people  who  have  never  examined  and  know 
nothing  of  the  theories  advanced  by  the  Anarchists,  or 
the  Socialists,  or  other  agitators.  In  my  judgment,  suppos- 
ing the  men  to  be  guilty,  it  is  far  better  to  imprison  them. 
Less  harm  will  be  done  the  cause  of  free  government.  We 
are  not  on  the  edge  of  any  revolution.  No  other  government 
is  as  firmly  fixed  as  ours.  No  other  government  has  such  a 
broad  and  splendid  foundation.  We  have  nothing  to  fear. 
Courage  and  safety  can  afford  to  be  generous — can  afford  to 
act  without  haste  and  without  the  feeling  of  revenge.  So, 
for  my  part,  I  hope  that  the  sentence  may  be  commuted, 
and  that  these  men,  if  found  guilty  at  last,  may  be  im- 


296  INTERVIEWS. 

prisoned.  This  course  is,  in  my  judgment,  the  safest  to 
pursue.  It  may  be  that  I  am  led  to  this  conclusion,  because 
of  my  belief  that  every  man  does  as  he  must.  This  belief 
makes  me  charitable  toward,  all  the  world.  This  belief 
makes  me  doubt  the  wisdom  of  revenge.  This  belief,  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  blots  from  our  language  the  word 
"  punishment."  Society  has  a  right  to  protect  itself,  and  it 
is  the  duty  of  society  to  reform,  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  pos- 
sible, any  member  who  has  committed  what  is  called  a 
crime.  Where  the  criminal  cannot  be  reformed,  and  the 
safety  of  society  can  be  secured  by  his  imprisonment,  there 
is  no  possible  excuse  for  destroying  his  life.  After  these 
six  or  seven  men  have  been,  in  accordance  with  the  forms 
of  law,  strangled  to  death,  there  will  be  a  few  pieces  of  clay, 
and  about  them  will  gather  a  few  friends,  a  few  admirers — 
and  these  pieces  will  be  buried,  and  over  the  grave  will  be 
erected  a  monument,  and  those  who  were  executed  as 
criminals  will  be  regarded  by  thousands  as  saints.  It  is 
far  better  for  society  to  have  a  little  mercy.  The  effect 
upon  the  community  will  be  good.  If  these  men  are 
imprisoned,  people  will  examine  their  teachings  without 
prejudice.  If  they  are  executed,  seen  through  the  tears  of 
pity,  their  virtues,  their  sufferings,  their  heroism,  will  be 
exaggerated ;  others  may  emulate  their  deeds,  and  the  gulf 
between  the  rich  and  the  poor  will  be  widened — a  gulf  that 
may  not  close  until  it  has  devoured  the  noblest  and  the 

best. — The  Mail  and  Express^  New  York,  November  3, 1887. 

THE  STAGE  AND  THE  PULPIT, 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Methodist  minister 
at  Nashville,  Tenn.,  who,  from  his  pulpit,  denounced  the 
theatrical  profession,  without  exception,  as  vicious,  and 
of  the  congregation  which  passed  resolutions  condemning 
Miss  Emma  Abbott  for  rising  in  church  and  contradicting 
him,  and  of  the  Methodist  bishop  who  likened  her  to  a 


INTERVIEWS.  297 

"painted  courtesan,"  and  invoked  the  aid  of  the  law  "for 
the  protection  of  public  worship"  against  ''strolling 
players  "  ? 

Answer.  The  Methodist  minister  of  whom  you  speak, 
without  doubt  uttered  his  real  sentiments.  The  church  has 
always  regarded  the  stage  as  a  rival,  and  all  its  utterances 
have  been  as  malicious  as  untrue.  It  has  always  felt  that 
the  money  given  to  the  stage  was  in  some  way  taken  from 
the  pulpit.  It  is  on  this  principle  that  the  pulpit  wishes 
everything,  except  the  church,  shut  up  on  Sunday.  It 
knows  that  it  cannot  stand  free  and  open  competition. 

All  well-educated  ministers  know  that  the  Bible  suffers 
by  a  comparison  with  Shakespeare.  They  know  that  there 
is  nothing  within  the  lids  of  what  they  call  "the  sacred 
book "  that  can  for  one  moment  stand  side  by  side  with 
**  Lear  "or  "Hamlet  "  or  "Julius  Caesar"  or  "Antony  and 
Cleopatra  "  or  with  any  other  play  written  by  the  immortal 
man.  They  know  what  a  poor  figure  the  Davids  and  the 
Abrahams  and  the  Jeremiahs  and  the  Lots,  the  Jonahs,  the 
Jobs  and  the  Noahs  cut  when  on  the  stage  with  the  g^eat 
characters  of  Shakespeare.  For  these  reasons,  among 
others,  the  pulpit  is  malicious  and  hateful  when  it  thinks 
of  the  glories  of  the  stage.  What  minister  is  there  now 
living  who  could  command  the  prices  commanded  by  Edwin 
Booth  or  Joseph  Jefferson;  and  what  two  clergymen,  by 
making  a  combination,  could  contend  successfully  with 
Robson  and  Crane?  How  many  clergymen  would  it  take 
to  command,  at  regular  prices,  the  audiences  that  attend  the 
presentation  of  Wagner's  operas  ? 

It  is  very  easy  to  see  why  the  pulpit  attacks  the  stage. 
Nothing  could  have  been  in  more  wretched  taste  than  for 
the  minister  to  condemn  Miss  Emma  Abbott  for  rising  in 
church  and  defending  not  only  herself,  but  other  good 
women  who  are  doing  honest  work  for  an  honest  living. 
Of  course,  no  minister  wishes  to  be  answered;  no  minister 


298  INTERVIEWS. 

wishes  to  liave  anyone  in  the  congregation  call  for  the 
proof.  A  few  questions  would  break  up  all  the  theology  in 
the  world.  Ministers  can  succeed  only  when  congregations 
keep  silent.  Where  superstition  succeeds,  doubt  must  be 
dumb. 

The  Methodist  bishop  who  attacked  Miss  Abbott  simply 
repeated  the  language  of  several  centuries  ago.  In  the  laws 
of  England  actors  were  described  as  *'  sturdy  vagrants,"  and 
this  bishop  calls  them  "strolling  players."  If  we  only  had 
some  strolling  preachers  like  Garrick,  like  Edwin  For- 
rest, or  Booth  and  Barrett,  or  some  crusade  sisters  like  Mrs. 
Siddons,  Madam  Ristori,  Charlotte  Cushman,  or  Madam 
Modjeska,  how  fortunate  the  church  would  be ! 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  relative  merits  of 
the  pulpit  and  the  stage,  preachers  and  actors  ? 

Answer.  We  must  remember  that  the  stage  presents  an 
ideal  life.  It  is  a  world  controlled  by  the  imagination — a 
world  in  which  the  justice  delayed  in  real  life  may  be  done, 
and  in  which  that  may  happen  which,  according  to  the 
highest  ideal,  should  happen.  It  is  a  world,  for  the  most 
part,  in  which  evil  does  not  succeed,  in  which  the  vicious 
are  foiled,  in  which  the  right,  the  honest,  the  sincere,  and 
the  good  prevail.  It  cultivates  the  imagination,  and  in  this 
respect  is  far  better  than  the  pulpit.  The  mission  of  the 
pulpit  is  to  narrow  and  shrivel  the  human  mind.  The  pul- 
pit denounces  the  freedom  of  thought  and  of  expression  ; 
but  on  the  stage  the  mind  is  free,  and  for  thousands  of 
years  the  poor,  the  oppressed,  the  enslaved,  have  been  per- 
mitted to  witness  plays  wherein  the  slave  was  freed,  wherein 
the  oppressed  became  the  victor,  and  where  the  downtrod- 
den rose  supreme. 

And  there  is  another  thing.  The  stage  has  always 
laughed  at  the  spirit  of  caste.  The  low-born  lass  has  loved 
the  prince.  All  human  distinctions  in  this  ideal  world  have 
for  the  moment  vanished,  while  honesty  and  love  have 


INTERVIEWS.  2^^ 

triumphed.  The  stage  lightens  the  cares  of  life.  The 
pulpit  increases  the  tears  and  groans  of  man.  There  is  this 
difference :  the  pretence  of  honesty  and  the  honesty  of  pre- 
tence. 

Question.  How  do  you  view  the  Episcopalian  scheme  of 
building  a  six-million-dollar  untaxed  cathedral  in  this  city 
for  the  purpose  of  "uniting  the  sects,"  and,  when  that  is 
accomplished,  "  unifying  the  world  in  the  love  of  Christ," 
and  thereby  abolishing  misery  ? 

Answer,  I  regard  the  building  of  an  Episcopal  cathe- 
dral simply  as  a  piece  of  religious  folly.  The  world  will 
never  be  converted  by  Christian  palaces  and  temples. 
Every  dollar  used  in  its  construction  will  be  wasted.  It 
will  have  no  tendency  to  unite  the  various  sects;  on  the 
contrary,  it  will  excite  the  envy  and  jealousy  of  every  other 
sect.  It  will  widen  the  gulf  between  the  Episcopalian  and 
the  Methodist,  between  the  Episcopalian  and  the  Presby- 
terian, and  this  hatred  will  continue  until  the  other  sects 
build  a  cathedral  just  a  little  larger,  and  then  the  envy  and 
the  hatred  will  be  on  the  other  side. 

Religion  will  never  unify  the  world,  and  never  will  give 
peace  to  mankind.  There  has  been  more  war  in  the  last 
eighteen  hundred  years  than  during  any  similar  period 
within  historic  times.  War  will  be  abolished,  if  it  ever  is 
abolished,  not  by  religion,  but  by  intelligence.  It  will  be 
abolished  when  the  poor  people  of  Germany,  of  France,  of 
Spain,  of  England,  and  other  countries  find  that  they  have 
no  interest  in  war.  When  those  who  pay,  and  those  who 
do  the  fighting,  find  that  they  are  simply  destroying  their 
own  interests,  wars  will  cease. 

There  ought  to  be  a  national  court  to  decide  national 
difficulties.  We  consider  a  community  civilized  when  the 
individuals  of  that  community  submit  their  differences  to  a 
legal  tribunal ;  but  there  being  no  national  court,  nations 
now  sustain,  as  to  each  other,  the  relation  of  savages — that 


300 


INTERVIEWS. 


is  to  say,  each  one  must  defend  its  rights  by  brute  force. 
The  establishment  of  a  national  court  civilizes  nations,  and 
tends  to  do  away  with  war. 

Christianity  caused  so  much  war,  so  much  bloodshed,  that 
Christians  were  forced  to  interpolate  a  passage  to  account 
for  their  history,  and  the  interpolated  passage  is,  "  I  came 
not  to  bring  peace,  but  a  sword."  Suppose  that  all  the 
money  wasted  in  cathedrals  in  the  Middle  Ages  had  been 
used  for  the  construction  of  schoolhouses,  academies,  and 
universities,  how  much  better  the  world  would  have  been ! 
Suppose  that  instead  of  supporting  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  idle  priests,  the  money  had  been  given  to  men  of  science 
for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  something  of  benefit  to  the 
human  race  here  in  this  v/orld. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  "Christian  charity'* 
and  the  ''fatherhood  of  God"  as  an  economic  polity  for 
abolishing  poverty  and  misery  ? 

Answer,  Of  course,  the  world  is  not  to  be  civilized  and 
clothed  and  fed  through  charity.  Ordinary  charity  creates 
more  want  than  it  alleviates.  The  greatest  possible  charity 
is  the  greatest  possible  justice.  When  proper  wages  are 
paid,  when  every  one  is  as  willing  to  give  what  a  thing  is 
worth  as  he  is  now  willing  to  get  it  for  less,  the  world  will 
be  fed  and  clothed. 

I  believe  in  helping  people  to  help  themselves.  I  believe 
that  corporations,  and  successful  men,  and  superior  men 
intellectually,  should  do  all  within  their  power  to  keep  from 
robbing  their  fellow-men.  The  'up'^rior  man  should  pro- 
tect the  inferior.  The  poweifiil  ?.houtd  be  the  shield  of  the 
weak.  To-day  it  is,  for  the  most  part,  exactly  the  other 
way.     The  failures  among  men  become  the  food  of  success. 

The  world  is  to  grow  better  and  better  through  intelli- 
gence, through  a  development  of  the  brain,  through  taking 
advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature,  through  science,  through 
chemistry,  and  through  the  arts.     Religion  can  do  nothing 


INTERVIEWS.  301 

except  to  sow  the  seeds  of  discord  between  men  and  nations. 
Commerce,  manufactures,  and  the  arts  tend  to  peace  and 
the  well-being  of  the  world.  What  is  known  as  religion — • 
that  is  to  say,  a  system  by  which  this  world  is  wasted  in 
preparation  for  another — a  system  in  which  the  duties  of 
man  are  greater  to  God  than  to  his  fellow-men — a  system 
that  denies  the  liberty  of  thought  and  expression — tends 
only  to  discord  and  retrogression.  Of  course,  I  know  that 
religious  people  cling  to  the  Bible  on  account  of  the  good 
that  is  in  it,  and  in  spite  of  the  bad,  and  I  know  that  Free- 
thinkers throw  away  the  Bible  on  account  of  the  bad  that 
is  in  it,  in  spite  of  the  good.  I  hope  the  time  will  come 
when  that  book  will  be  treated  like  other  books,  and  will  be 
judged  upon  its  merits,  apart  from  tlie  fiction  of  inspiration. 
The  church  has  no  right  to  speak  of  charitj^  because  it  is 
an  object  of  charity  itself.  It  gives  nothing;  all  it  can  do 
is  to  receive.  At  best,  it  is  only  a  respectable  beggar.  I 
never  care  to  hear  one  who  receives  alms  pay  a  tribute  to 
charity.  The  one  who  gives  alms  should  pay  this  tribute. 
The  amount  of  money  expended  upon  churches  and  priests 
and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  superstition,  is  more  than 
enough  to  drive  the  wolves  from  the  doors  of  the  world. 

Question.  Have  you  noticed  the  progress  Catholics  are 
making  in  the  Northwest,  discontinuing  public  schools,  and 
forcing  people  to  send  their  children  to  the  parochial 
schools;  also,  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
has  been  elected  principal  of  a  public  school,  and  he  has  ap- 
pointed nuns  as  assistant  teachers  ? 

Aiiswer.  Sectarian  schools  ought  not  to  be  supported  by 
public  taxation.  It  is  the  verj^  essence  of  religious  tyranny 
to  compel  a  Methodist  to  support  a  Catholic  school,  or  to 
compel  a  Catholic  to  support  a  Baptist  academj^  Nothing 
should  be  taught  in  the  public  schools  that  the  teachers  do 
not  know.  Nothing  should  be  taught  about  any  religion, 
and  nothing   should  be  taught  that  can,  in  any  way,  be 


302  INTERVIEWS. 

called  sectarian.  The  sciences  are  not  religious.  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  Methodist  mathematics,  or  Baptist  botany. 
In  other  words,  no  religion  has  anything  to  do  with  facts. 
The  facts  are  all  secular;  the  sciences  are  all  of  this  world. 
If  Catholics  wish  to  establish  their  own  schools  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preserving  their  ignorance,  they  have  the  right  to 
do  so ;  so  has  any  other  denomination.  But  in  this  country, 
the  State  has  no  right  to  teach  any  form  of  religion  what- 
ever. Persons  of  all  religions  have  the  right  to  become 
citizens,  and  citizens  have  the  right  to  advocate  and  defend 
any  religion  in  which  they  believe,  or  they  have  the  right 
to  denounce  all  religions.  If  the  Catholics  establish  paro- 
chial schools,  let  them  support  such  schools ;  and  if  they 
do,  they  will  simply  lessen  or  shorten  the  longevity  of  that 
particular  superstition.  It  has  often  been  said  that  noth- 
ing will  repeal  a  bad  law  as  quickly  as  its  enforcement. 
So,  in  my  judgment,  nothing  will  destroy  any  church  as 
certainly,  and  as  rapidly,  as  for  the  members  of  that  church 
to  live  squarely  up  to  the  creed.  The  church  is  indebted  to 
its  hypocrisy  to-day  for  its  life.  No  orthodox  church  in 
the  United  States  dare  meet  for.  the  purpose  of  revising 
the  creed.  They  know  that  the  whole  thing  would  fall  in 
pieces. 

Nothing  could  be  more  absurd  than  for  a  Roman  Catholic 
priest  to  teach  a  public  school,  assisted  by  nuns.  The 
Catholic  Church  is  the  enemy  of  human  progress  ;  it  teaches 
every  man  to  throw  away  his  reason,  to  deny  his  observa- 
tion and  experience. 

Qtcestion.  Your  opinions  have  frequently  been  quoted 
with  regard  to  the  Anarchists — with  regard  to  their  trial 
and  execution.  Have  you  any  objection  to  stating  your 
real  opinion  in  regard  to  the  matter  ? 

Answer,  Not  the  least.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  all 
civilized  people  should  know  my  opinions  on  any  question 
in  which  others  than  myself  can  have  any  interest. 


INTERVIEWS.  303 

I  was  anxious,  in  tlie  first  place,  that  the  Anarchists  should 
have  a  fair  and  impartial  trial.  The  worst  form  of  anarchy  is 
when  a  judge  violates  his  conscience  and  bows  to  a  popular 
demand.  A  court  should  care  nothing  for  public  opinion. 
An  honest  judge  decides  the  law,  not  as  it  ought  to  be,  but 
as  it  is,  and  the  state  of  the  public  mind  throws  no  light 
upon  the  question  of  what  the  law  then  is. 

I  thought  that  some  of  the  rulings  on  the  trial  of  the 
Anarchists  were  contrary  to  law.  I  think  so  still.  I  have 
read  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  and 
while  the  conclusion  reached  by  that  tribunal  is  the  law  of 
that  case,  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  reasons  given,  and  do 
not  regard  the  opinion  as  good  law.  There  is  no  place  for 
an  Anarchist  in  the  United  States.  There  is  no  excuse  for 
any  resort  to  force ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  use  language  too 
harsh  or  too  bitter  in  denouncing  the  spirit  of  anarchy  in 
this  country.  But,  no  matter  how  bad  a  man  is,  he  has  the 
right  to  be  fairly  tried ;  and  if  he  cannot  be  fairly  tried,  then 
there  is  anarchy  on  the  bench.  So  I  was  opposed  to  the 
execution  of  those  men.  I  thought  it  would  have  been  far 
better  to  commute  the  punishment  to  imprisonment,  and  I 
said  so ;  and  I  not  only  said  so,  but  I  wrote  a  letter  to  Gov- 
ernor Oglesby,  in  which  I  urged  the  commutation  of  the 
death  sentence.  In  my  judgment,  a  great  mistake  was 
made.  I  am  on  the  side  of  mercy,  and  if  I  ever  make  mis- 
takes, I  hope  they  will  all  be  made  on  that  side.  I  have 
not  the  slightest  sympathy  with  the  feeling  of  revenge. 
Neither  have  I  ever  admitted,  and  I  never  shall,  that  every 
citizen  has  not  the  right  to  give  his  opinion  on  all  that  may 
be  done  by  any  servant  of  the  people,  by  any  judge,  or  by 
any  court,  by  any  officer — however  small  or  however  great. 
Each  man  in  the  United  States  is  a  sovereign,  and  a  king 
can  freely  speak  his  mind. 

Words  were  put  in  my  mouth  that  I  never  uttered  with 
regard  to  the  Anarchists.     I  never  said  that  they  were 


304  INTERVIEWS. 

saints,  or  that  they  would  be  martyrs.  What  I  said  was, 
that  they  would  be  regarded  as  saints  and  martyrs  by  many 
people  if  they  were  executed,  and  that  has  happened  which 
I  said  would  happen.  I  am,  so  far  as  I  know,  on  the  side 
of  the  right.  I  wish,  above  all  things,  for  the  preservation 
of  human  liberty.  This  Government  is  the  best,  and  we 
should  not  lose  confidence  in  liberty.  Property  is  of  very 
little  value  in  comparison  with  freedom.  A  civilization  that 
rests  on  slavery  is  utterly  worthless.  I  do  not  believe  in 
sacrificing  all  there  is  of  value  in  the  human  heart,  or  in  the 
human  brain,  for  the  preservation  of  what  is  called  property, 
or  rather,  on  account  of  the  fear  that  what  is  called  *'  prop- 
erty" may  perish.  Property  is  in  no  danger  while  man  is 
free.  It  is  the  freedom  of  man  that  gives  value  to  property. 
It  is  the  happiness  of  the  human  race  that  creates  what  we 
call  value.  If  we  preserve  liberty,  the  spirit  of  progress,  the 
conditions  of  development,  property  will  take  care  of  itself. 

Question.  The  Christian  press  during  the  past  few  months 
has  been  very  solicitous  as  to  your  health,  and  has  reported 
you  weak  and  feeble  physically,  and  not  only  so,  but  asserts 
that  there  is  a  growing  disposition  on  your  part  to  lay  down 
your  arms,  and  even  to  join  the  churcho 

Answer,  I  do  not  think  the  Christian  press  has  been  very 
solicitous  about  my  health.  Neither  do  I  think  that  my 
health  will  ever  add  to  theirs.  The  fact  is,  I  am  exceedingly 
wellj  and  my  throat  is  better  than  it  has  been  for  many 
years.  Any  one  who  imagines  that  I  am  disposed  to  lay 
down  my  arms  can  read  my  Reply  to  Dr.  Field  in  the  No- 
vember number  of  the  North  American  Review.  I  see  no 
particular  difference  in  myself,  except  this ;  that  my  hatred 
of  superstition  becomes  a  little  more  and  more  intense;  on 
the  other  hand,  I  see  more  clearly,  that  all  the  superstitions 
were  naturally  produced,  and  I  am  now  satisfied  that  every 
man  does  as  he  must,  including  priests  and  editors  of  relig- 
ious papers. 


INTERVIEWS,  305 

This  gives  me  hope  for  the  future.  We  find  that  certain 
soil,  with  a  certain  amount  of  moisture  and  heat,  produces 
good  corn,  and  we  find  when  the  soil  is  poor,  or  when  the 
ground  is  too  wet,  or  too  dry,  that  no  amount  of  care  can, 
by  any  possibility,  produce  good  corn.  In  other  words,  we 
find  that  the  fruit,  that  is  to  say,  the  result,  whatever  it  may 
be,  depends  absolutely  upon  the  conditions.  This  being  so, 
we  will  in  time  find  out  the  conditions  that  produce  good, 
intelligent,  honest  men.  This  is  the  hope  for  the  future. 
We  shall  know  better  than  to  rely  on  what  is  called  reforma- 
tion, or  regeneration,  or  a  resolution  born  of  ignorant  ex- 
citement. We  shall  rely,  then,  on  the  eternal  foundation — 
the  fact  in  nature — that  like  causes  produce  like  results,  and 
that  good  conditions  will  produce  good  people. 

Qtiestion.  Every  now  and  then  some  one  challenges  you  to 
a  discussion,  and  nearly  every  one  who  delivers  lectures,  or 
speeches,  attacking  you,  or  your  views,  says  that  you  are 
afraid  publicly  to  debate  these  questions.  Why  do  you  not 
meet  these  men,  and  why  do  you  not  answer  these  attacks? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  it  would  be  a  physical  impossi- 
bility to  reply  to  all  the  attacks  that  have  been  made — to 
all  the  "answers."  I  receive  these  attacks,  and  these  an- 
swers, and  these  lectures  almost  every  day.  Hundreds  of 
them  are  delivered  every  year.  A  great  many  are  put  in 
pamphlet  form,  and,  of  course,  copies  are  received  by  me. 
Some  of  them  I  read,  at  least  I  look  them  over,  and  I  have 
never  yet  received  one  worthy  of  the  slightest  notice,  never 
one  in  which  the  writer  showed  the  slightest  appreciation 
of  the  questions  under  discussion.  All  these  pamphlets  are 
about  the  same,  and  they  could,  for  that  matter,  have  all 
been  produced  by  one  person.  They  are  impudent,  shallow, 
abusive,  illogical,  and  in  most  respects,  ignorant.  So  far  as 
the  lecturers  are  concerned,  I  know  of  no  one  who  has  yet 
said  anything  that  challenges  a  reply.  I  do  not  think  a 
single  paragraph  has  been  produced  by  any  of  the  gentlemen 


3O0  INTERVIEWS. 

who  have  replied  to  me  in  public,  that  is  now  remembered 
by  reason  of  its  logic  or  its  beauty.  I  do  not  feel  called 
upon  to  answer  any  argument  that  does  not  at  least  appear 
to  be  of  value.  Whenever  any  article  appears  worthy  of  an 
answer,  written  in  a  kind  and  candid  spirit,  it  gives  me 
pleasure  to  reply. 

I  should  like  to  meet  some  one  who  speaks  by  authority, 
some  one  who  really  understands  his  creed,  but  I  cannot 
afford  to  waste  time  on  little  priests  or  obscure  parsons  or 

ignorant  laymen. — The  Truth  Seeker,  New  York,  January  14,  1888. 

ROSCOE  CONKLING. 

Question.  What  is  Mr.  Conkling's  place  in  the  political 
history  of  the  United  States  ? 

A7iswei\  Upon  the  great  questions  Mr.  Conkling  has 
been  right.  During  the  war  he  was  always  strong  and 
clear,  unwavering  and  decided.  His  position  was  always 
known.  He  was  right  on  reconstruction,  on  civil  rights,  on 
the  currency,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  on  all  important  ques- 
tions. He  will  be  remembered  as  an  honest,  fearless  man. 
He  was  admired  for  his  known  integrity.  He  was  never 
even  suspected  of  being  swayed  by  an  improper  considera- 
tion.    He  was  immeasurably  above  purchase. 

His  popularity  rested  upon  his  absolute  integrity.  He 
was  not  adapted  for  a  leader,  because  he  would  yield 
nothing.  He  had  no  compromise  in  his  nature.  He  went 
his  own  road  and  he  would  not  turn  aside  for  the  sake  of 
company.  His  individuality  was  too  marked  and  his  will 
too  imperious  to  become  a  leader  in  a  republic.  There  is 
a  great  deal  of  individuality  in  this  country,  and  a  leader 
must  not  appear  to  govern  and  must  not  demand  obedience. 
In  the  Senate  he  was  a  leader.     He  settled  with  no  one. 

Question.  What  essentially  American  idea  does  he  stand 
for? 

Answer.  It  is  a  favorite  saying  in  this  country  that  the 


INTERVIEWSo  307 

people  are  sovereigns.  Mr.  Conkling  felt  this  to  be  true, 
and  he  exercised  what  he  believed  to  be  his  rights.  He 
insisted  upon  the  utmost  freedom  for  himself.  He  settled 
with  no  one  but  himself.  He  stands  for  individuality — for 
the  freedom  of  the  citizen,  the  independence  of  the  man. 
No  lord,  no  duke,  no  king  was  ever  prouder  of  his  title  or 
his  place  than  Mr,  Conkling  was  of  his  position  and  his 
power.  He  was  thoroughly  American  in  every  drop  of 
his  blood. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  about  his  having  died 
with  sealed  lips  ? 

Answer,  Mr.  Conkling  was  too  proud  to  show  wounds. 
He  did  not  tell  his  sorrows  to  the  public.  It  seemed  suffi- 
cient for  him  to  know  the  facts  himself.  He  seemed  to 
have  great  confidence  in  time,  and  he  had  the  patience  to 
wait.  Of  course  he  could  have  told  many  things  that 
would  have  shed  light  on  many  important  events,  but  for 
my  part  I  think  he  acted  in  the  noblest  way. 

He  was  a  striking  and  original  figure  in  our  politics. 
He  stood  alone.  I  know  of  no  one  like  him.  He  will  be 
remembered  as  a  fearless  and  incorruptible  statesman,  a 
great  lawyer,  a  magnificent  speaker,  and  an  honest  man. — 

Tlie  Herald,  New  York,  April  19,  188a 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  STAGE. 

Question,  I  have  come  to  talk  with  you  a  little  about  the 
drama.     Have  you  any  decided  opinions  on  that  subject  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  is  more  natural  than  imitation.  The 
little  child  with  her  doll,  telling  it  stories,  putting  words 
in  its  mouth,  attributing  to  it  the  feelings  of  happiness 
and  misery,  is  the  simple  tendency  toward  the  drama. 
Little  children  always  have  plays,  they  imitate  their 
parents,  they  put  on  the  clothes  of  their  elders,  they  have 
imaginary  parties,  carry  on  conversation  with  imaginary 
persons,  have  little  dishes  filled  with  imaginary  food,  pour 


308  INTERVIEWS. 

tea  and  coffee  out  of  invisible  pots,  receive  callers,  and  re- 
peat what  they  have  heard  their  mothers  say.  This  is 
simply  the  natural  drama,  an  exercise  of  the  imagination 
which  always  has  been  and  which,  probably,  always  will 
be,  a  source  of  great  pleasure.  In  the  early  days  of  the 
world  nothing  was  more  natural  than  for  the  people  to  re- 
enact  the  history  of  their  country — to  represent  the  great 
heroes,  the  great  battles,  and  the  most  exciting  scenes  the 
history  of  Vv^hich  has  been  preserved  by  legend.  I  believe 
this  tendency  to  re-enact,  to  bring  before  the  ej^es  the  great, 
the  curious,  and  pathetic  events  of  history,  has  been 
universal.  All  civilized  nations  have  delighted  in  the 
theatre,  and  the  greatest  minds  in  many  countries  have 
been  devoted  to  the  drama,  and,  without  doubt,  the  great- 
est man  about  whom  we  know  anything  devoted  his  life  to 
the  production  of  plays. 

Question,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  why,  in  your  opinion 
as  a  student  of  history,  has  the  Protestant  Church  always 
been  so  bitterly  opposed  to  the  theatre  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  that  the  early  Christians  expected  the 
destruction  of  the  world.  They  had  no  idea  of  remaining 
here,  in  the  then  condition  of  things,  but  for  a  few  days. 
They  expected  that  Christ  would  come  again,  that  the 
world  would  be  purified  by  fire,  that  all  the  unbelievers 
would  be  burned  up  and  that  the  earth  would  become  a  fit 
habitation  for  the  followers  of  the  Savior,  Protestantism 
became  as  ascetic  as  the  early  Christians.  It  is  hard  to  con- 
ceive of  anybody  believing  in  the  "  Five  Points  "  of  John  Cal- 
vin going  to  any  place  of  amusement.  The  creed  of  Protest- 
antism made  life  infinitely  sad  and  made  man  infinitely 
responsible.  According  to  this  creed  every  man  was  liable 
at  any  moment  to  be  summoned  to  eternal  pain ;  the  most 
devout  Christian  was  not  absolutely  sure  of  salvation. 
This  life  was  a  probationary  state.  Everybody  was  con- 
sidered as  waiting  on  the  dock  of  time,  sitting  on  his  trunk, 


INTERVIEWS.  309 

expecting  the  ship  that  was  to  bear  him  to  an  eternit}"  of 
good  or  evil — probably  evil.  They  were  in  no  state  of 
mind  to  enjoy  burlesque  or  comedy,  and,  so  far  as  tragedy 
was  concerned,  their  own  lives  and  their  own  creeds  were 
tragic  beyond  anything  that  could  by  any  possibility  hap- 
pen in  this  world.  A  broken  heart  was  nothing  to  be  com- 
pared with  a  damned  soul ;  the  afflictions  of  a  few  years, 
with  the  flames  of  eternity.  This,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
accounts,  in  part,  for  the  hatred  that  Protestantism  always 
bore  toward  the  stage.  Of  course,  the  churches  have  always 
regarded  the  theatre  as  a  rival  and  have  begrudged  the 
money  used  to  support  the  stage.  You  know  that  Macaulay 
said  the  Puritans  objected  to  bear-baiting,  not  because  they 
pitied  the  bears,  but  because  they  hated  to  see  the  people 
enjoy  themselves.  There  is  in  this  at  least  a  little  truth. 
Orthodox  religion  has  always  been  and  always  will  be  the 
enemy  of  happiness.  This  world  is  not  the  place  for  en- 
joyment. This  is  the  place  to  suffer.  This  is  the  place  to 
practice  self-denial,  to  wear  crowns  of  thorns ;  the  other 
world  is  the  place  for  jo}^,  provided  you  are  fortunate 
enough  to  travel  the  narrow,  grass-grown  path.  Of 
course,  wicked  people  can  be  happy  here.  People  who 
care  nothing  for  the  good  of  others,  who  live  selfish  and 
horrible  lives,  are  supposed  bj^  Christians  to  enjoy  them- 
selves ;  consequently,  they  will  be  punished  in  another  world. 
But  whoever  carried  the  cross  of  decency,  and  whoever  denied 
himself  to  that  degree  that  he  neither  stole  nor  forged 
nor  murdered,  will  be  paid  for  this  self-denial  in  another 
world.  And  whoever  said  that  he  preferred  a  prayer-meet- 
ing with  five  or  six  queer  old  men  and  two  or  three  very 
aged  women,  with  one  or  two  candles,  and  who  solemnly 
afiSrmed  that  he  enjoyed  that  far  more  than  he  could  a  play 
of  Shakespeare,  was  expected  with  much  reason,  I  think, 
to  be  rewarded  in  another  world. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  church  people  were  justified 


3IO  INTERVIEWS, 

in  their  opposition  to  the  drama  in  the  days  when  Con- 
greve,  Wycherley  and  Ben  Jonson  were  the  popular  favor- 
ites ? 

Answer o  In  that  time  there  was  a  great  deal  of  vulgarity 
in  many  of  the  plays.  Many  things  were  said  on  the  stage 
that  the  people  of  this  age  would  not  care  to  hear,  and 
there  was  not  very  often  enough  wit  in  the  saying  to  re- 
deem it.  My  principal  objection  to  Congreve,  Wycherley 
and  most  of  their  contemporaries  is  that  the  plaj^s  were 
exceedingly  poor  and  had  not  much  in  them  of  real,  ster- 
ling value.  The  Puritans,  however,  did  not  object  on  ac- 
count of  the  vulgarity  ;  that  was  not  the  honest  objection. 
No  play  was  ever  put  upon  the  English  stage  more  vulgar 
than  the  "Table  Talk"  of  Martin  Luther,  and  many  ser- 
mons preached  in  that  day  were  almost  unrivaled  for  vul- 
garity. The  worst  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  were 
quoted  with  a  kind  of  unction  that  showed  a  love  for  the 
vulgar.  And,  in  my  judgment,  the  worst  plays  were  as 
good  as  the  sermons,  and  the  theatre  of  that  time  was  bet- 
ter adapted  to  civilize  mankind,  to  soften  the  human 
heart,  and  to  make  better  men  and  better  women,  than  the 
pulpit  of  that  day.  The  actors,  in  my  judgment,  were 
better  people  than  the  preachers.  They  had  in  them  more 
humanity,  more  real  goodness  and  more  appreciation  of 
beauty,  of  tenderness,  of  generosity  and  of  heroism.  Prob- 
abl}^  no  religion  was  ever  more  thoroughly  hateful  than 
Puritanism.  But  all  religionists  who  believe  in  an  eternity 
of  pain  would  naturally  be  opposed  to  everything  that 
makes  this  life  better ;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  orthodox 
churches  have  been  the  enemies  of  painting,  of  sculpture, 
of  music  and  of  the  drama. 

Question.  What,  in  your  estimation,  is  the  value  of  the 
drama  as  a  factor  in  our  social  life  at  the  present  time  ? 

Answer,  I  believe  that  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  are  the 
most  valuable  things  in  the  possession  of  the  human  race. 


INTERVIEWS.  311 

No  man  can  read  and  understand  Shakespeare  \f  ithout 
being  an  intellectually  developed  man.  If  Shakespeare 
could  be  as  widely  circulated  as  the  Bible— if  all  the  Bible 
societies  would  break  the  plates  they  now  have  and  print 
Shakespeare,  and  put  Shakespeare  in  all  the  languages  of 
the  world,  nothing  w^ould  so  raise  the  intellectual  standard 
of  mankind.  Think  of  the  different  influence  on  men  be- 
tween reading  Deuteronomy  and  "Hamlet"  and  "King 
Lear";  between  studying  Numbers  and  the  "Midsummer 
Night's  Dream " ;  between  pondering  over  the  murderous 
crimes  and  assassinations  in  Judges,  and  studying  "The 
Tempest  "  or  "  As  You  Like  It."  Man  advances  as  he 
develops  intellectually.  The  church  teaches  obedience. 
The  man  who  reads  Shakespeare  has  his  intellectual  horizon 
enlarged.  He  begins  to  think  for  himself,  and  he  enjoys  liv- 
ing in  a  new  w^orld.  The  characters  of  Shakespeare  become 
his  acquaintances.  He  admires  the  heroes,  the  philosophers  ; 
he  laughs  with  the  clowns,  and  he  almost  adores  the  beauti- 
ful women,  the  pure,  loving,  and  heroic  women  born  of 
Shakespeare's  heart  and  brain.  The  stage  has  amused  and 
instructed  the  world.  It  has  added  to  the  happiness  of 
mankind.  It  has  kept  alive  all  arts.  It  is  in  partnership 
with  all  there  is  of  beauty,  of  poetry,  and  expression.  It 
goes  hand  in  hand  with  music,  with  painting,  with  vSculp- 
ture,  with  oratory,  with  philosophy,  and  history.  The 
stage  has  humor.  It  abhors  stupidity.  It  despises  hj^poc- 
risy.  It  holds  up  to  laughter  the  peculiarities,  the  idiosyn- 
crasies, and  the  little  insanities  of  mankind.  It  thrusts  the 
spear  of  ridicule  through  the  shield  of  pretence.  It  laughs 
at  the  lugubrious  and  it  has  ever  taught  and  will,  in  all 
probability,  forever  teach,  that  Man  is  more  than  a  title, 
and  that  human  love  laughs  at  all  barriers,  at  all  the 
prejudices  of  society  and  caste  that  tend  to  keep  apart  two 
loving  hearts. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  progress  of  the 


313  INTER  VIEWSo 

drama  in  educating  the  artistic  sense  of  the  community  as 
compared  with  the  progress  of  the  church  as  an  educator  of 
the  moral  sentiment  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  the  stage  is  not  all  good,  nor  is — and 
I  say  this  with  becoming  modesty — the  pulpit  all  bad. 
There  have  been  bad  actors  and  there  have  been  good 
preachers.  There  has  been  no  improvement  in  plays  since 
Shakespeare  wrote.  There  has  been  great  improvement  in 
theatres,  and  the  tendency  seems  to  me  to  be  toward  higher 
artistic  excellence  in  the  presentation  of  plays.  As  we  be- 
come slowly  civilized  we  will  constantly  demand  more 
artistic  excellence.  There  will  always  be  a  class  satisfied 
w^ith  the  lowest  form  of  dramatic  presentation,  with  coarse 
wit,  with  stupid  but  apparent  jokes,  and  there  will  always 
be  a  class  satisfied  with  almost  anything ;  but  the  class  de- 
manding the  highest,  the  best,  will  constantly  increase  in 
numbers,  and  the  other  classes  will,  in  all  probability,  cor- 
respondingly decrease.  The  church  has  ceased  to  be  an 
educator.  In  an  artistic  direction  it  never  did  an3^thing 
except  in  architecture,  and  that  ceased  long  ago.  The  fol- 
lowers of  to-day  are  poor  copyists.  The  church  has  been 
compelled  to  be  a  friend  of,  or  rather  to  call  in  the  assist- 
ance of,  music.  As  a  moral  teacher,  the  church  always  has 
been  and  always  will  be  a  failure.  The  pulpit,  to  use  the 
language  of  Frederick  Douglass,  has  always  "  echoed  the 
cry  of  the  street."  Take  our  own  history.  The  church 
was  the  friend  of  slavery.  That  institution  was  defended 
in  nearly  every  pulpit.  The  Bible  was  the  auction-block  on 
which  the  slave-mother  stood  while  her  child  was  sold  from 
her  arms.  The  church,  for  hundreds  of  years,  was  the 
friend  and  defender  of  the  slave-trade.  I  know  of  no  crime 
that  has  not  been  defended  by  the  church,  in  one  form  or 
other.  The  church  is  not  a  pioneer ;  it  accepts  a  new 
truth,  last  of  all,  and  only  when  denial  has  become  useless. 
The  church   preaches  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness.     Thi; 


INTERVIEWS.  313 

doctrine  sells  crime  on  credit.  The  idea  that  there  is  a  God 
who  rewards  and  punishes,  and  who  can  reward,  if  he  so 
wishes,  the  meanest  and  vilest  of  the  human  race,  so  that 
he  will  be  eternally  happy,  and  can  punish  the  best  of  the 
human  race,  so  that  he  will  be  eternally  miserable,  is  sub- 
versive of  all  morality.  Happiness  ought  to  be  the  result 
of  good  actions.  Happiness  ought  to  spring  from  the  seed 
a  man  sows  himself.  It  ought  not  to  be  a  reward,  it  ought 
to  be  a  consequence,  and  there  ought  to  be  no  idea  that 
there  is  any  being  who  can  step  between  action  and  conse- 
quence. To  preach  that  a  man  can  abuse  his  wife  and 
children,  rob  his  neighbors,  slander  his  fellow-citizens,  and 
yet,  a  moment  or  two  before  he  dies,  by  repentance  become 
a  glorified  angel,  is,  in  my  judgment,  immoral.  And  to 
preach  that  a  man  can  be  a  good  man,  kind  to  his  wife  and 
children,  an  honest  man,  paying  his  debts,  and  yet,  for  the 
lack  of  a  certain  belief,  the  moment  after  he  is  dead,  be  sent 
to  an  eternal  prison,  is  also  immoral.  So  that,  according  to 
my  opinion,  while  the  church  teaches  men  many  good 
things,  it  also  teaches  doctrines  subversive  of  morality. 
If  there  were  not  in  the  whole  world  a  church,  the  morality 
of  man,  in  my  judgment,  would  be  the  gainer. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  treatment  of  the 
actor  by  society  in  his  social  relations  ? 

Answer.  For  a  good  many  years  the  basis  of  society  has 
been  the  dollar.  Onlj^  a  few  years  ago  all  literary  men 
were  ostracized  because  they  had  no  m-oney  ;  neither  did 
they  have  a  reading  public.  If  any  man  produced  a  book 
he  had  to  find  a  patron — some  titled  donkey,  some  landed 
lubber,  in  whose  honor  he  could  print  a  few  well-turned  lies 
on  the  fly-leaf.  If  you  wish  to  know  the  degradation  of 
literature,  read  the  dedication  written  by  Lord  Bacon  to 
James  I.,  in  which  he  puts  him  beyond  all  kings,  living  and 
dead — beyond  Caesar  and  Marcus  Aurelius.  In  those  days 
the  literary  man  was  a  servant,  a  hack.     He  lived  in  Grub 


314  INTERVIEWS. 

Street.  He  was  only  one  degree  above  the  sturdy  vagrant 
and  the  escaped  convict.  Why  was  this  ?  He  had  no 
money  and  he  lived  in  an  age  when  money  was  the  founda- 
tion of  respectability.  Let  me  give  you  another  instance  : 
Mozart,  whose  brain  was  a  fountain  of  melody,  was  forced 
to  eat  at  a  table  with  coachmen,  with  footmen  and  scull- 
ions. He  was  simply  a  servant  who  was  commanded  to 
make  music  for  a  pudding-headed  bishop.  The  same  was 
true  of  the  great  painters,  and  of  almost  all  other  men  who 
rendered  the  world  beautiful  by  art,  and  who  enriched  the 
languages  of  mankind.  The  basis  of  respectability  was  the 
dollar. 

Now  that  the  literary  man  has  an  intelligent  public  he 
cares  nothing  for  the  ignorant  patron.  The  literary  man 
makes  money.  The  world  is  becoming  civilized  and  the 
literary  man  stands  high.  In  England,  however,  if  Charles 
Darwin  had  been  invited  to  dinner,  and  there  had  been 
present  some  sprig  of  nobility,  some  titled  vessel  holding 
the  germs  of  hereditary  disease,  Darwin  would  have  been 
compelled  to  occupy  a  place  beneath  him.  But  I  have  hopes 
even  for  England.  The  same  is  true  of  the  artist.  The  man 
who  can  now  paint  a  picture  for  which  he  receives  from 
five  thousand  to  fifty  thousand  dollars,  is  necessarily  re- 
spectable. The  actor  who  may  realize  from  one  to  two 
thousand  dollars  a  night,  or  even  more,  is  welcomed  in  the 
stupidest  and  richest  society.  So  with  the  singers  and 
with  all  others  who  instruct  and  amuse  mankind.  Many 
people  imagine  that  he  who  amuses  them  must  be  lower 
than  they.  This,  however,  is  hardly  possible.  I  believe 
in  the  aristocracy  of  brain  and  heart ;  in  the  aristocracy  of 
intelligence  and  goodness,  and  not  only  appreciate  but  ad- 
mire the  great  actor,  the  great  painter,  the  great  sculptor, 
the  marvelous  singer.  In  other  words,  I  admire  all  peo- 
ple who  tend  to  make  this  life  richer,  who  give  an  addi- 
tional thought  to  this  poor  world 


INTERVIEWS.  315 

Question.  Do  you  think  this  liberal  movement,  favoring 
the  better  class  of  plays,  inaugurated  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Abbott,  will  tend  to  soften  the  sentiment  of  the  orthodox 
churches  against  the  stage  ? 

Answer.  I  have  not  read  what  Dr.  Abbott  has  written  on 
this  subject.  From  your  statement  of  his  position,  I  think 
he  entertains  quite  a  sensible  view,  and,  when  we  take  into 
consideration  that  he  is  a  minister,  a  miraculousl}^  sen- 
sible view.  It  is  not  the  business  of  the  dramatist,  the 
actor,  the  painter  or  the  sculptor  to  teach  what  the  church 
calls  morality.  The  dramatist  and  the  actor  ought  to  be 
truthful,  ought  to  be  natural — that  is  to  say,  truthfully 
and  naturally  artistic.  He  should  present  pictures  of  life 
properly  chosen,  artisticall}^  constructed  ;  an  exhibition  of 
emotions  truthfully  done,  artistically  done.  If  vice  is  pre- 
sented naturally,  no  one  will  fall  in  love  with  vice.  If  the 
better  qualities  of  the  human  heart  are  presented  naturally, 
no  one  can  fail  to  fall  in  love  w^ith  them.  But  they  need 
not  be  presented  for  that  purpose.  The  object  of  the  artist 
is  to  present  truthfully  and  artistically.  He  is  not  a  Sunday 
school  teacher.  He  is  not  to  have  the  moral  effect  eternally 
in  his  mind.  It  is  enough  for  him  to  be  truly  artistic. 
Because,  as  I  have  said,  a  great  many  times,  the  greatest 
good  is  done  by  indirection.  For  instance,  a  man  lives  a 
good,  noble,  honest  and  lofty  life.  The  value  of  that  life 
would  be  destroyed  if  he  kept  calling  attention  to  it — if  he 
said  to  all  who  met  him,  "  Look  at  me  !  "  he  would  become 
intolerable.  The  truly  artistic  speaks  of  perfection  ;  that 
is  to  say,  of  harmony,  not  only  of  conduct,  but  of  harmony 
and  proportion  in  everything.  The  pulpit  is  always  afraid 
of  the  passions,  and  really  imagines  that  it  has  some  influ- 
ence on  men  and  women,  keeping  them  in  the  path  of  vir- 
tue. No  greater  mistake  was  ever  made.  Eternally  talking 
and  harping  on  that  one  subject,  in  my  judgment,  does 
harm.     Forever  keeping  it  in  the  mind  by  reading  passages 


3l6  INTERVIEWS. 

from  the  Bible,  by  talking  about  the  ''  corruption  of  the 
human  heart,"  of  the  "power  of  temptation,  "  of  the 
scarcity  of  virtue,  of  the  plentifulness  of  vice — all  these 
platitudes  tend  to  produce  exactly  what  they  are  directed 
against. 

Question.  I  fear,  Colonel,  that  I  have  surprised  you  into 
agreeing  with  a  clergyman.  The  following  are  the  points 
made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Abbott  in  his  editorial  on  the  theatre, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  you  and  he  think  very  much  alike — 
on  that  subject.     The  points  are  these: 

1.  It  is  not  the  function  of  the  drama  to  teach  moral  lessons. 

2.  A  moral  lesson  neither  makes  nor  mars  either  a  drama  or  novel. 

3.  The  moral  quality  of  a  play  does  not  depend  upon  the  result. 

4.  The  real  function  of  the  drama  is  like  that  of  the  novel — not  to 
amuse,  not  to  excite  ;  but  to  portray  life,  and  so  minister  to  it.  And 
as  virtue  and  vice,  goodness  and  evil,  are  the  great  fundamental  facts 
of  life,  they  must,  in  either  serious  story  or  serious  play,  be  portray- 
ed. If  they  are  so  portrayed  that  the  vice  is  alluring  and  the  virtue 
repugnant,  the  play  or  story  is  immoral ;  if  so  portrayed  that  the  vice 
is  repellant  and  the  virtue  alluring,  the  play  or  story  is  moral. 

5.  The  church  has  no  occasion  to  ask  the  theatre  to  preach  ;  though 
if  it  does  preach  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  its  ethical  doctrines 
be  pure  and  high.  But  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  in  its  pictures 
of  life  it  so  portrays  vice  as  to  make  it  abhorrent,  and  so  portrays 
virtue  as  to  make  it  attractive. 

Answer,  I  agree  in  most  of  what  you  have  read,  though 
I  must  confess  that  to  find  a  minister  agreeing  with  me,  or 
to  find  myself  agreeing  with  a  minister,  makes  me  a  little 
uncertain.  All  art,  in  my  judgment,  is  for  the  sake  of  ex- 
pression— equally  true  of  the  drama  as  of  painting  and 
sculpture.  No  poem  touches  the  human  heart  unless  it 
touches  the  universal.  It  must,  at  some  point,  move  in 
unison  with  the  great  ebb  and  flow  of  things.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  play,  of  a  piece  of  music  or  a  statue.  I  think 
that  all  real  artists,  in  all  departments,  touch  the  universal, 
and  when  they  do  the  result  is  good  ;  but  the  result  need 
not  have  been  a  consideration.     There  is  an  old  story  that 


INTERVIEWS.  317 

at  first  there  was  a  temple  erected  upon  the  earth  by  God 
hitQself ;  that  afterward  this  temple  was  shivered  into 
countless  pieces  and  distributed  over  the  whole  earth,  and 
that  all  the  rubies  and  diamonds  and  precious  stones  since 
found  are  parts  of  that  temple.  Now,  if  we  could  conceive  of 
a  building,  or  of  anything  involving  all  Art,  and  that  it  had 
been  scattered  abroad,  then  I  would  say  that  whoever  finds 
and  portrays  truthfully  a  thought,  an  emotion,  a  truth,  has 
found  and  restored  one  of  the  jewels. — Dramatic  Mirror,  ^q\s 

York,  AprU  21,  1888. 

PROTECTION— FREE  TRADE, 

Question.  Do  you  take  much  interest  in  politics.  Colonel 
IngersoU  ? 

Answer.  I  take  as  much  interest  in  politics  as  a  Republi- 
can ought  who  expects  nothing  and  who  wants  nothing 
for  himself.  I  want  to  see  this  country  again  controlled 
by  the  Republican  party.  The  present  administration  has 
not,  in  my  judgment,  the  training  and  the  political  intelli- 
gence to  decide  upon  the  great  economic  and  financial 
questions.  There  are  a  great  many  politicians  and  but 
few  statesmen.  Here,  where  men  have  to  be  elected  every 
two  or  six  5'ears,  there  is  hardly  time  for  the  ofiicials  to 
study  statesmanship — they  are  busy  laying  pipes  and  fix- 
ing fences  for  the  next  election.  Each  one  feels  much  like 
a  monkey  at  a  fair,  on  the  top  of  a  greased  pole,  and  puts 
in  the  most  of  his  time  dodging  stones  and  keeping  from 
falling.  I  want  to  see  the  party  in  power  best  qualified, 
best  equipped,  to  administer  the  Government. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  will  be  the  particular  issue 
of  the  coming  campaign  ? 

Afiswer.  That  question  has  already  been  answered.  The 
great  question  will  be  as  to  the  tariff.  Mr.  Cleveland  im- 
agines that  the  surplus  can  be  gotten  rid  of  by  a  reduction 
of  the  tariff.     If  the  reduction  is  so  great  as  to  increase  the 


31 8  INTERVIEWS. 

demand  for  the  foreign  articles,  the  probability  is  that  the 
surplus  will  be  increased.  The  surplus  can  surely  be  done 
away  with  by  either  of  two  methods ;  first  make  the  tariff 
prohibitory  ;  second,  have  no  tariff.  But  if  the  tariff  is  just 
at  that  point  where  the  foreign  goods  could  pay  it  and  yet 
undersell  the  American  so  as  to  stop  home  manufactures, 
then  the  surplus  would  increase. 

As  a  rule  we  can  depend  on  American  competition  to 
keep  prices  at  a  reasonable  rate.  When  that  fails  we  have 
at  all  times  the  governing  power  in  our  hands — that  is  to 
say,  we  can  reduce  the  tariff.  In  other  words,  the  tariff  is 
not  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturer — the  protection  is 
not  for  the  mechanic  or  the  capitalist — it  is  for  the  whole 
country.  I  do  not  believe  in  protecting  silk  simply  to  help 
the  town  of  Paterson,  but  I  am  for  the  protection  of  that 
manufacture,  because,  in  my  judgment,  it  helps  the  entire 
country,  and  because  I  know  that  it  has  given  us  a  far 
better  article  of  silk  at  a  far  lower  price  than  we  obtained 
before  the  establishment  of  those  factories. 

I  believe  in  the  protection  of  every  industry  that  needs  it, 
to  the  end  that  we  may  make  use  of  every  kind  of  brain 
and  find  use  for  all  human  capacities.  In  this  way  we  will 
produce  greater  and  better  people.  A  nation  of  agricul- 
turists or  a  nation  of  mechanics  would  become  narrow  and 
small,  but  where  everything  is  done,  then  the  brain  is  cul- 
tivated on  every  side,  from  arti.san  to  artist.  That  is  to 
say,  we  become  thinkers  as  well  as  workers ;  muscle  and 
mind  form  a  partnership. 

I  don't  believe  that  England  is  particularly  interested  in 
the  welfare  of  the  United  States.  It  never  seemed  probable 
to  me  that  men  like  Goldwin  Smith  sat  up  nights  fearing 
that  we  in  some  way  might  injure  ourselves.  To  use  a 
phrase  that  will  be  understood  by  theologians  at  least,  we 
ought  to  "  copper  "  all  English  advice. 

The  free  traders  say  that  there  ought  to  be  no  obstructions 


INTERVIEWS.  319 

placed  by  governments  between  buyers  and  sellers.  If  we 
want  to  make  the  trade,  of  course  there  should  be  no  obstruc- 
tion, but  if  we  prefer  that  Americans  should  trade  with 
Americans — that  Americans  should  make  what  Americans 
want — then,  so  far  as  trading  with  foreigners  is  concerned, 
there  ought  to  be  an  obstruction. 

I  am  satisfied  that  the  United  States  could  get  along  if 
the  rest  of  the  world  should  be  submerged,  and  I  want  to 
see  this  country  in  such  a  condition  that  it  can  be  independ  • 
ent  of  the  rest  of  mankind. 

There  is  more  mechanical  genius  in  the  United  States 
than  in  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  this  genius  has  been 
fostered  and  developed  by  protection.  The  Democracy 
wish  to  throw  all  this  away — to  make  useless  this  skill,  this 
ingenuity,  born  of  generations  of  application  and  thought. 
These  deft  and  marvelous  hands  that  create  the  countless 
things  of  use  and  beauty  to  be  worth  no  more  than  the  com- 
mon hands  of  ignorant  delvers  and  shovelers.  To  the  ex- 
tent that  thought  is  mingled  with  labor,  labor  becomes 
honorable  and  its  burden  lighter. 

Thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  have  been  invested  on 
the  faith  of  this  policy — millions  and  millions  of  people 
are  this  day  earning  their  bread  by  reason  of  protection, 
and  they  are  better  housed  and  better  fed  and  better  clothed 
than  any  other  workmen  on  the  globe. 

The  intelligent  people  of  this  countrj^  will  not  be  satisfied 
with  President  Cleveland's  platform — with  his  free  trade 
primer.  They  believe  in  good  wages  for  good  work,  and 
they  know  that  this  is  the  richest  nation  in  the  world.  The 
Republic  is  worth  at  least  sixty  billion  dollars.  This  vast 
sum  is  the  result  of  labor,  and  this  labor  has  been  pro- 
tected either  directly  or  indirectly.  This  vast  sum  has 
been  made  by  the  farmer,  the  mechanic,  the  laborer,  the 
miner,  the  inventor. 

Protection  has  given  work  and  wages  to  the  mechanic 


320  INTERVIEWS, 

and  a  market  to  the  farmer.  The  interests  of  all  laborers 
in  America — all  men  who  work — are  identical.  If  the 
farmer  pays  more  for  his  plow  he  gets  more  for  his  plow- 
ing. In  old  times,  when  the  South  manufactured  nothing 
and  raised  only  raw  material — for  the  reason  that  its  labor 
was  enslaved  and  could  not  be  trusted  with  education 
enough  to  become  skillful — it  was  in  favor  of  free  trade  ; 
it  wanted  to  sell  the  raw  material  to  England  and  buy  the 
manufactured  article  where  it  could  buy  the  cheapest. 
Even  under  those  circumstances  it  was  a  short-sighted  and 
unpatriotic  policy.  Now  everything  is  changing  in  the 
South.  They  are  beginning  to  see  that  he  who  simply 
raises  raw  material  is  destined  to  be  forever  poor.  For 
instance,  the  farmer  who  sells  corn  will  never  get  rich ;  the 
farmer  should  sell  pork  and  beef  and  horses.  So  a  nation, 
a  State,  that  parts  with  its  raw  material,  loses  nearly  all  the 
profits,  for  the  reason  that  the  profit  rises  with  the  skill 
requisite  to  produce.  It  requires  only  brute  strength  to 
raise  cotton ;  it  requires  something  more  to  spin  it,  to 
weave  it,  and  the  more  beautiful  the  fabric  the  greater  the 
skill,  and  consequently  the  higher  the  wages  and  the  greater 
the  profit.  In  other  words,  the  more  thought  is  mingled 
with  labor  the  more  valuable  is  the  result. 

Besides  all  this,  protection  is  the  mother  of  economy  ;  the 
cheapest  at  last,  no  matter  whether  the  amount  paid  is  less 
or  more.  It  is  far  better  for  us  to  make  glass  than  to  sell 
sand  to  other  countries ;  the  profit  on  sand  will  be  exceed- 
ingly small. 

The  interests  of  this  country  are  united ;  they  depend 
upon  each  other.  You  destroy  one  and  the  effect  upon  all 
the  rest  may  be  disastrous.  Suppose  we  had  free  trade  to- 
day, what  would  become  of  the  manufacturing  interests 
to-morrow  ?  The  value  of  property  would  fall  thousands  of 
millions  of  dollars  in  an  instant.  The  fires  would  die  out 
in  thousands    and    thousands    of    furnaces,    innumerable 


INTERVIEWS.  321 

engines  would  stop,  thousands  and  thousands  would  stop 
digging  coal  and  iron  and  lead.  What  would  the  city  that 
had  been  built  up  by  the  factories  be  worth  ?  What  would 
be  the  effect  on  farms  in  that  neighborhood  ?  What  would 
be  the  effect  on  railroads,  on  freights,  on  business — what 
upon  the  towns  through  which  they  passed.  Stop  making 
iron  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  State  would  be  bankrupt  in 
an  hour.  Give  us  free  trade,  and  New  Jersey,  Connecticut 
and  many  other  States  would  not  be  worth  one  dollar  an 
acre. 

If  a  man  will  think  of  the  connection  between  all  indus- 
tries— of  the  dependence  and  inter-dependence  of  each  on 
all ;  of  the  subtle  relations  between  all  human  pursuits — he 
will  see  that  to  destroy  some  of  the  great  interests  means 
financial  ruin  and  desolation,  I  am  not  talking  now  about 
a  tariff  that  is  too  high,  because  that  tariff  does  not  produce 
a  surplus — neither  am  I  asking  to  have  that  protected 
which  needs  no  protection — I  am  only  insisting  that  all  the 
industries  that  have  been  fostered  and  that  need  protection 
should  be  protected,  and  that  we  should  turn  our  attention 
to  the  interests  of  our  own  country,  letting  other  nations 
take  care  of  themselves.  If  every  American  would  use 
only  articles  produced  by  Americans — if  they  would  wear 
only  American  cloth,  only  American  silk — if  we  would 
absolutely  stand  by  each  other,  the  prosperity  of  this  nation 
would  be  the  marvel  of  human  history.  We  can  live  at 
home,  and  we  have  now  the  ingenuity,  the  intelligence,  the 
industry  to  raise  from  nature  everything  that  a  nation 
needs. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  about  the  claim  that  Mr. 
Cleveland  does  not  propose  free  trade  ? 

Answer.  I  suppose  that  he  means  what  he  said.  His 
argument  was  all  for  free  trade,  and  he  endeavored  to  show 
to  the  farmer  that  he  lost  altogether  more  money  by  pro- 
tection, because  he  paid  a  higher  price  for  manufactured 


322  "INTERVIEWS. 

articles  and  received  no  more  for  what  he  had  to  sell.  This 
certainly  was  an  argument  in  favor  of  free  trade.  And 
there  is  no  way  to  decrease  the  surplus  except  to  prohibit 
the  importation  of  foreign  articles,  which  certainly  Mr. 
Cleveland  is  not  in  favor  of  doing,  or  to  reduce  the  tariff 
to  a  point  so  low  that  no  matter  how  much  may  be  imported 
the  surplus  will  be  reduced.  If  the  message  means  any- 
thing it  means  free  trade,  and  if  there  is  any  argument  in  it 
it  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  absolute  free  trade.  The 
party,  not  willing  to  say  **  free  trade"  uses  the  word 
"reform."  This  is  simply  a  mask  and  a  pretence.  The 
party  knows  that  the  President  made  a  mistake.  The 
party,  however,  is  so  situated  that  it  cannot  get  rid  of 
Cleveland,  and  consequently  must  take  him  with  his  mis- 
take— they  must  take  him  with  his  message,  and  then  show 
that  all  he  intended  by  "  free  trade  "  was  "  reform." 

Question.  Who  do  you  think  ought  to  be  nominated  at 
Chicago? 

Answer.  Personally,  I  am  for  General  Gresham.  I  am 
saying  nothing  against  the  other  prominent  candidates. 
They  have  their  friends,  and  many  of  them  are  men  of 
character  and  capacity,  and  would  make  good  Presidents. 
But  I  know  of  no  man  who  has  a  better  record  than 
Gresham,  and  of  no  man  who,  in  my  judgment,  would 
receive  a  larger  number  of  votes.  I  know  of  no  Republican 
who  would  not  support  Judge  Gresham.  I  have  never 
heard  one  say  that  he  had  anything  against  him  or  knew  of 
any  reason  why  he  should  not  be  voted  for.  He  is  a  man 
of  great  natural  capacity.  He  is  candid  and  unselfish.  He 
has  for  many  years  been  engaged  in  the  examination  and 
decision  of  important  questions,  of  good  principles,  and  con- 
sequently he  has  a  trained  mind.  He  knows  how  to  take 
hold  of  a  question,  to  get  at  a  fact,  to  discover  in  a  multitude 
of  complications  the  real  principle — the  heart  of  the  case. 
He  has   always  been  a  man  of  affairs.     He  is  not  simply  a 


INTERVIEWS.  3-3 

judge— that  is  to  say,  a  legal  pair  of  scales— lie  knows  the 
effect  of  his  decision  on  the  welfare  of  communities — he  is 
not  governed  entirely  by  precedents — he  has  opinions  of  his 
own„  In  the  next  place,  he  is  a  man  of  integrity  in  all  the 
relations  of  life.  He  is  not  a  seeker  after  place,  and,  so  far 
as  I  know,  he  has  done  nothing  for  the  purpose  of  inducing 
any  human  being  to  favor  his  nomination.  I  have  never 
spoken  to  him  on  the  subject. 

In  the  West  he  has  developed  great  strength,  in  fact,  his 
popularity  has  astonished  even  his  best  friends.  The  great 
mass  of  people  want  a  perfectly  reliable  man — one  who  will 
be  governed  by  his  best  judgment  and  by  a  desire  to  do 
the  fair  and  honorable  thing.  It  has  btcn  stated  that  the 
great  corporations  might  not  support  him  with  much 
warmth  for  the  reason  that  he  has  failed  to  decide  certain 
cases  in  their  favor.  I  believe  that  he  has  decided  the  law 
as  he  believed  it  to  be,  and  that  he  has  never  been  influenced 
in  the  slightest  degree,  by  the  character,  position,  or  the 
wealth  of  the  parties  before  him.  It  may  be  that  some  of 
the  great  financiers,  the  manipulators,  the  creators  of  bonds 
and  stocks,  the  blowers  of  financial  bubbles,  will  not  sup- 
port him  and  will  not  contribute  any  money  for  the  pay- 
ment of  election  expenses,  because  they  are  perfectly  satis- 
fied that  they  could  not  make  any  arrangements  with  him  to 
get  the  money  back,  together  with  interest  thereon,  but  the 
people  of  this  country  are  intelligent  enough  to  know  what 
that  means,  and  they  will  be  patriotic  enough  to  see  to  it 
that  no  man  needs  to  bow  or  bend  or  cringe  to  the  rich  to 
attain  the  highest  place. 

The  probability  is  that  Mr.  Blaine  could  have  been 
nominated  had  he  not  withdrawn,  but  having  withdrawn, 
of  course  the  party  is  released.  Others  were  induced  to 
become  candidates,  and  under  these  circumstances  Mr. 
Blaine  has  hardly  the  right  to  change  his  mind,  and  cer- 
tainly other  persons  ought  not  to  change  it  for  him^ 


324  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  friends  of  Gresham 
would  support  Blaine  if  he  should  be  nominated  ? 

Answer.  Undoubtedly  they  would.  If  they  go  into  con- 
vention they  must  abide  the  decision.  It  would  be  dishon- 
orable to  do  that  which  you  would  denounce  in  others. 
Whoever  is  nominated  ought  to  receive  the  support  of  all 
good  Republicans.  No  party  can  exist  that  will  not  be 
bound  by  its  own  decision.  When  the  platform  is  made, 
then  is  the  time  to  approve  or  reject.  The  conscience  of 
the  individual  cannot  be  bound  by  the  action  of  party, 
church  or  state.  But  when  you  ask  a  convention  to  nomin- 
ate your  candidate,  you  really  agree  to  stand  by  the  choice 
of  the  convention.  Principles  are  of  more  importance  than 
candidates.  As  a  rule,  men  who  refuse  to  support  the 
nominee,  while  pretending  to  believe  in  the  platform,  are 
giving  an  excuse  for  going  over  to  the  enemy.  It  is  a  pre- 
tence to  cover  desertion.  I  hope  that  whoever  may  be 
nominated  at  Chicago  will  receive  the  cordial  support  of  the 
entire  party,  of  every  man  who  believes  in  Republican  prin- 
ciples, who  believes  in  good  wages  for  good  work,  and  has 
confidence  in  the  old  firms  of  *'  Mind  and  Muscle."  of  ''  Head 

and  Hand." — New  YorkPress^  May  27, 18S8. 

LABOR,  AND  TARIFF  REFORM. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  condition  of  labor 
in  this  country  as  compared  with  that  abroad  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  self-evident  that  if  labor 
received  more  in  other  lands  than  in  this  the  tide  of  emigra- 
tion would  be  changed.  The  workingmen  would  leave  our. 
shores.  People  who  believe  in  free  trade  are  always  telling  us 
that  the  laboring  man  is  paid  much  better  in  Germany  than 
in  the  United  States,  and  yet  nearly  every  ship  that  comea 
from  Germany  is  crammed  with  Germans,  who,  for  some 
unaccountable  reason,  prefer  to  leave  a  place  where  they  are 
doing  well  and  come  to  one  where  they  must  do  worse. 


INTERVIEWS.  325 

The  same  thing  can  be  said  of  Denmark  and  Sweden,  of 
England,  Scotland,  Ireland  and  of  Italy.  The  truth  is,  that 
in  all  those  lands  the  laboring  man  can  earn  just  enough 
to-day  to  do  the  work  of  to-morrow ;  everything  he  earns  is 
required  to  get  food  enough  in  his  body  and  rags  enough 
on  his  back  to  work  from  day  to  day,  to  toil  from  week  to 
week.  There  are  only  three  luxuries  within  his  reach — 
air,  light  and  water;  probably  a  fourth  might  be  added — 
death. 

In  those  countries  the  few  own  the  land,  the  few  have  the 
capital,  the  few  make  the  laws,  and  the  laboring  man  is  not 
a  powder.  His  opinion  is  neither  asked  nor  heeded.  The 
employers  pay  as  little  as  they  can.  When  the  world 
becomes  civilized  everybody  will  want  to  pay  what  things 
are  worth,  but  now  capital  as  perfectly  willing  that  labor 
shall  remain  at  the  starvation  line.  Competition  on  every 
hand  tends  to  put  down  wages.  The  time  will  come  when 
the  whole  community  will  see  that  justice  is  economical. 
If  you  starve  laboring  men  you  increase  crime ;  you  mul- 
tiply, as  they  do  in  England,  workhouses,  hospitals  and  all 
kinds  of  asylums,  and  these  public  institutions  are  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  care  of  the  wrecks  that  have  been  pro- 
duced by  greed  and  stinginess  and  meanness — that  is  to  say, 
by  the  ignorance  of  capital. 

Question.  What  effect  has  the  protective  tariff  on  the  con- 
dition of  labor  in  this  country  ? 

A7iswer.  To  the  extent  that  the  tariff  keeps  out  the 
foreign  article  it  is  a  direct  protection  to  American  labor. 
Everything  in  this  country  is  on  a  larger  scale  than  in  any 
other.  There  is  far  more  generosity  among  the  manufac- 
turers and  merchants  and  millionaires  and  capitalists  of  the 
United  States  than  among  those  of  any  other  country,  al- 
though they  are  bad  enough  and  mean  enough  here. 

But  the  great  thing  for  the  laboring  man  in  the  United 
States  is  that  he  is  regarded  as  a  man.     He  is  a  unit  of 


326  INTERVIEWS. 

political  power.  His  vote  counts  just  as  much  as  that  of 
the  richest  and  most  powerful.  The  laboring  man  has  to 
be  consulted.  The  candidate  has  either  to  be  his  friend  or 
to  pretend  to  be  his  friend,  before  he  can  succeed.  A  man 
running  for  the  presidency  could  not  say  the  slightest  word 
against  the  laboring  man,  or  calculated  to  put  a  stain  upon 
industry,  without  destroying  every  possible  chance  of 
success.  Generally,  every  candidate  tries  to  show  that  he  is 
a  laboring  man,  or  that  he  was  a  laboring  man,  or  that  his 
father  was  before  him.  There  is  in  this  country  very  little 
of  the  spirit  of  caste — the  most  infamous  spirit  that  ever 
infested  the  heartless  breast  or  the  brainless  head  of  a 
human  being. 

Qttestion.  What  will  be  the  eifect  on  labor  of  a  departure 
in  American  policy  in  the  direction  of  free  trade  ? 

Answer.  If  free  trade  could  be  adopted  to-morrow  there 
would  be  an  instant  shrinkage  of  values  in  this  country. 
Probably  the  immediate  loss  would  equal  twenty  billion 
dollars — that  is  to  say,  one-third  of  the  value  of  the  country. 
No  one  can  tell  its  extent.  All  things  are  so  interwoven 
that  to  destroy  one  industry  cripples  another,  and  the 
influence  keeps  on  until  it  touches  the  circumference  of 
human  interests. 

I  believe  that  labor  is  a  blessing.  It  never  was  and  never 
will  be  a  curse.  It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  labor  for  your  wife 
and  children,  for  your  father  and  mother,  and  for  the  ones 
you  love.  It  is  a  blessed  thing  to  have  an  object  in  life^ 
something  to  do — something  to  call  into  play  j^our  best 
thoughts,  to  develop  your  faculties  and  to  make  you  a  man. 
How  beautiful,  how  charming,  are  the  dreams  of  the  young 
mechanic,  the  artist,  the  musician,  the  actor  and  the  student. 
How  perfectly  stupid  must  be  the  life  of  a  young  man  with 
nothing  to  do,  no  ambition,  no  enthusiasm — that  is  to  say, 
nothing  of  the  divine  in  him ;  the  young  man  with  an  object 
in  life,  of  whose  brain  a  great  thought,  a  great  dream  has 


INTERVIEWS.  327 

taken  possession,  and  in  whose  heart  there  is  a  great,  throb- 
bing hope.  He  looks  forward  to  success — to  wife,  children, 
home — all  the  blessings  and  sacred  joys  of  human  life.  He 
thinks  of  wealth  and  fame  and  honor,  and  of  a  long,  genial, 
golden,  happy  autumn. 

Work  gives  the  feeling  of  independence,  of  self-respect. 
A  man  who  does  something  necessarily  puts  a  value  on 
himself.  He  feels  that  he  is  a  part  of  the  world's  force. 
The  idler — no  matter  what  he  says,  no  matter  how  scorn- 
fully he  may  look  at  the  laborer — in  his  very  heart  knows 
exactly  what  he  is ;  he  knows  that  he  is  a  counterfeit,  a  poor 
worthless  imitation  of  a  man. 

But  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  work  and  what  I 
call  "toil."  What  must  be  the  life  of  a  man  who  can  earn 
only  one  dollar  or  two  dollars  a  day  ?  If  this  man  has  a 
wife  and  a  couple  of  children  how  can  the  family  live? 
What  must  they  eat?  What  must  they  wear?  From  the 
cradle  to  the  coffin  they  are  ignorant  of  any  luxury  of  life. 
If  the  man  is  sick,  if  one  of  the  children  dies,  how  can 
doctors  and  medicines  be  paid  for  ?  How  can  the  coffin  or 
the  grave  be  purchased  ?  These  people  live  on  what  might 
be  called  "  the  snow  line  " — just  at  that  point  where  trees  end 
and  the  mosses  begin.  What  are  such  lives  worth  ?  The 
wages  of  months  would  hardly  pay  for  the  ordinary  dinner 
of  a  family  of  a  rich  man.  The  savings  of  a  whole  life 
would  not  purchase  one  fashionable  dress,  or  the  lace  on  it. 
Such  a  man  could  not  save  enough  during  his  whole  life  to 
pay  for  the  flowers  of  a  fashionable  funeral. 

And  yet  how  often  hundreds  of  thousands  of  persons,  who 
spend  thousands  of  dollars  every  year  on  luxuries,  really 
wonder  why  the  laboring  people  should  complain.  They 
are  astonished  when  a  car  driver  objects  to  working  four- 
teen hours  a  day.  Men  give  millions  of  dollars  to  carry  the 
gospel  to  the  heathen,  and  leave  their  own  neighbors  with- 
out bread ;  and  these  same  people  insist  on  closing  libraries 


328  INTERVIEWS. 

and  museums  of  art  on  Sunday,  and  yet  Sunday  is  the  only 
day  that  these  institutions  can  be  visited  by  the  poor. 

They  even  want  to  stop  the  street  cars  so  that  these 
workers,  these  men  and  women,  cannot  go  to  the  parks  of 
the  fields  on  Sunday.  They  want  stages  stopped  on  fash- 
ionable avenues  so  that  the  rich  may  not  be  disturbed  in 
their  prayers  and  devotions. 

The  condition  of  the  workingman,  even  in  America,  is 
bad  enough.  If  free  trade  will  not  reduce  wages  what  will? 
If  manufactured  articles  become  cheaper  the  skilled  laborers 
of  America  must  work  cheaper  or  stop  producing  the 
articles.  Every  one  knows  that  most  of  the  value  of  a 
manufactured  article  comes  from  labor.  Think  of  the  differ- 
ence between  the  value  of  a  pound  of  cotton  and  a  pound  of 
the  finest  cotton  cloth ;  between  a  pound  of  flax  and  enough 
point  lace  to  weigh  a  pound ;  between  a  few  ounces  of 
paint,  two  or  three  yards  of  canvas  and  a  great  picture; 
between  a  block  of  stone  and  a  statue !  Labor  is  the  princi- 
pal factor  in  price;  when  the  price  falls  wages  must  go 
down. 

I  do  not  claim  that  protection  is  for  the  benefit  of  any 
particular  class,  but  that  it  is  for  the  benefit  not  only  of  that 
particular  class,  but  of  the  entire  country.  In  England  the 
common  laborer  expects  to  spend  his  old  age  in  some  work- 
house. He  is  cheered  through  all  his  days  of  toil,  through 
all  his  years  of  weariness,  by  the  prospect  of  dying  a  re- 
spectable pauper.  The  women  work  as  hard  as  the  men. 
They  work  in  the  iron  mills.  They  make  nails,  they  dig 
coal,  they  toil  in  the  fields. 

In  Europe  they  carry  the  hod,  they  work  like  beasts  and 
with  beasts,  until  they  lose  almost  the  semblance  of  human 
beings — until  they  look  inferior  to  the  animals  they  drive. 
On  the  labor  of  these  deformed  mothers,  of  these  bent  and 
wrinkled  girls,  of  little  boys  with  the  faces  of  old  age,  the 
heartless  nobility  live  in  splendor  and  extravagant  idleness. 


INTERVIEWS.  329 

I  am  not  now  speaking  of  the  French  people,  as  France  is 
the  most  prosperous  country  in  Europe. 

Let  us  protect  our  mothers,  our  wives  and  our  children 
from  the  deformity  of  toil,  from  the  depths  of  poverty. 

Question.  Is  not  the  ballot  an  assurance  to  the  laboring 
man  that  he  can  get  fair  treatment  from  his  employer  ? 

Answer,  The  laboring  man  in  this  country  has  the  politi- 
cal power,  provided  he  has  the  intelligence  to  know  it  and 
the  intelligence  to  use  it.  In  so  far  as  laws  can  assist  labor, 
the  workingman  has  it  in  his  power  to  pass  such  laws ;  but 
in  most  foreign  lands  the  laboring  man  has  really  no  voice. 
It  is  enough  for  him  to  work  and  wait  and  suffer  and  emi- 
grate.    He  can  take  refuge  in  the  grave  or  go  to  America. 

In  the  old  country,  where  people  have  been  taught  that 
all  blessings  come  from  the  king,  it  is  very  natural  for  the 
poor  to  believe  the  other  side  of  that  proposition — that  is  to 
say,  all  evils  come  from  the  king,  from  the  government. 
They  are  rocked  in  the  cradle  of  this  falsehood.  So  when 
they  come  to  this  country,  if  they  are  unfortunate,  it  is 
natural  for  them  to  blame  the  Government. 

The  discussion  of  these  questions,  however,  has  already 
done  great  good.  The  workingman  is  becoming  more  and 
more  intelligent.  He  is  getting  a  better  idea  every  day  of 
the  functions  and  powers  and  limitations  of  government, 
and  if  the  problem  is  ever  worked  out — and  by  "  problem  "  I 
mean  the  just  and  due  relations  that  should  exist  between 
labor  and  capital — it  will  be  worked  out  here  in  America. 

Question,  What  assurance  has  the  American  laborer  that 
he  will  not  be  ultimately  swamped  by  foreign  immigration  ? 

Answer.  Most  of  the  immigrants  that  come  to  America 
come  because  they  want  a  home.  Nearly  every  one  of  them 
is  what  you  may  call  "  land  hungry."  In  his  country,  to 
own  a  piece  of  land  was  to  be  respectable,  almost  a  noble- 
man. The  owner  of  a  little  land  was  regarded  as  the 
founder  of  a  family — what  you  might  call  a  "village  dy- 


33©  INTERVIEWS. 

nasty."  When  they  leave  their  native  shores  for  America, 
their  dream  is  to  become  a  land  owner — to  have  fields,  to 
own  trees,  and  to  listen  to  the  music  of  their  own  brooks. 

The  moment  they  arrive  the  mass  of  them  seek  the  West, 
where  land  can  be  obtained.  The  great  Northwest  now  is 
being  filled  with  Scandinavian  farmers,  with  persons  from 
every  part  of  Germany — in  fact  from  all  foreign  countries 
— and  every  year  they  are  adding  millions  of  acres  to  the 
plowed  fields  of  the  Republic.  This  land  hunger,  this  desire 
to  own  a  home,  to  have  a  field,  to  have  flocks  and  herds,  to 
sit  under  your  own  vine  and  fig  tree,  will  prevent  foreign 
immigration  from  interfering  to  any  hurtful  degree  with  the 
skilled  workmen  of  America.  These  land  owners,  these 
farmers,  become  consumers  of  manufactured  articles.  They 
keep  the  wheels  and  spindles  turning  and  the  fires  in  the 
forges  burning. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Cleveland's  message? 

Answer.  Only  the  other  day  I  read  a  speech  made  by  the 
Hon.  William  D.  Kelley,  of  Pennsylvania,  upon  this  subject, 
in  which  he  says  in  answer  to  what  he  calls  "  the  puerile 
absurdity  of  President  Cleveland's  assumption"  that  the 
duty  is  always  added  to  the  cost,  not  only  of  imported  com- 
modities, but  to  the  price  of  like  commodities  produced  in 
this  country,  ''  that  the  duties  imposed  by  our  Government 
on  sugar  reduced  to  ad  valorem  were  never  so  high  as  now, 
and  the  price  of  sugar  was  never  in  this  county  so  low  as 
it  is  now."  He  also  showed  that  this  tax  on  sugar  has 
made  it  possible  for  us  to  produce  sugar  from  other  plants 
and  he  gives  the  facts  in  relation  to  corn  sugar. 

We  are  now  using  annually  nineteen  million  bushels  of 
corn  for  the  purpose  of  making  glucose  or  corn  sugar.  He 
shows  that  in  this  industry  alone  there  has  been  a  capital 
invested  of  eleven  million  dollars ;  that  seven  hundred  and 
thirty-two  thousand  acres  of  land  are  required  to  furnish 
the  supply,  and  that  this  one  industry  now  gives  employ- 


INTERVIEWS.  331 

ment  to  about  twenty-two  thousand  farmers,  about  five 
thousand  laborers  in  factories,  and  that  the  annual  value 
of  this  product  of  corn  sugar  is  over  seventeen  million 
dollars. 

He  also  shows  what  we  may  expect  from  the  cultivation 
of  the  beet.  I  advise  every  one  to  read  that  speech,  so  that 
they  may  have  some  idea  of  the  capabilities  of  this  country, 
of  the  vast  wealth  asking  for  development,  of  the  countless 
avenues  opened  for  ingenuity,  energy  and  intelligence. 

Question.  Does  the  protective  tariff  cheapen  the  prices  of 
commodities  to  the  laboring  man  ? 

Answer.  In  this  there  are  involved  two  questions.  If 
the  tariff  is  so  low  that  the  foreign  article  is  imported,  of 
course  this  tariff  is  added  to  the  cost  and  must  be  paid  by 
the  consumer ;  but  if  the  protective  tariff  is  so  high  that  the 
importer  cannot  pay  it,  and  as  a  consequence  the  article  is 
produced  in  America,  then  it  depends  largely  upon  compe- 
tition whether  the  full  amount  of  the  tariff  will  be  added  to 
the  article.  As  a  rule,  competition  will  settle  that  question 
in  America,  and  the  article  will  be  sold  as  cheaply  as  the 
producers  can  afford. 

For  instance :  If  there  is  a  tariff,  we  will  say  of  fifty 
cents  on  a  pair  of  shoes,  and  this  tariff  is  so  low  that  the 
foreign  article  can  afford  to  pay  it,  then  that  tariff,  of  course, 
must  be  paid  by  the  consumer.  But  suppose  the  tariff  was 
five  dollars  on  a  pair  of  shoes — that  is  to  say,  absolutely 
prohibitory — does  any  man  in  his  senses  say  that  five  dol- 
lars would  be  added  to  each  pair  of  American  shoes  ?  Of 
course,  the  statement  is  the  answer. 

I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  the  laboring  man  in  this 
country,  first,  thoroughly  to  post  himself  upon  these  great 
questions,  to  endeavor  to  understand  his  own  interest  as 
well  as  the  interest  of  his  country,  and  if  he  does,  I  believe 
he  will  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  it  is  far  better  to  have 
this  country  filled  with  manufacturers  than  to  be  employed 


332  INTERVIEWS. 

simply  in  the  raising  of  raw  material.  I  think  he  will  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  we  had  better  have  skilled  labor  here, 
and  that  it  is  better  to  pay  for  it  than  not  to  have  it.  I 
think  he  will  find  that  it  is  better  for  America  to  be  sub- 
stantially independent  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  I  think  he 
will  conclude  that  nothing  is  more  desirable  than  the 
development  of  American  brain,  and  that  nothing  better 
can  be  raised  than  great  and  splendid  men  and  women.  I 
think  he  will  conclude  that  the  cloud  coming  from  the 
factories,  from  the  great  stacks  and  chimneys,  is  the  cloud 
on  which  will  be  seen,  and  always  seen,  the  bow  of  Amer- 
ican promise. 

Question.  What  have  you  to  say  about  tariff  reform  ? 

Answer.  I  have  this  to  say :  That  the  tariff  is  for  the 
most  part  the  result  of  compromises — that  is,  one  State 
wishing  to  have  something  protected  agrees  to  protect 
something  else  in  some  other  State,  so  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  many  things  are  protected  that  need  no  protection,  and 
many  things  are  unprotected  that  ought  to  be  cared  for  by 
the  Government. 

I  am  in  favor  of  a  sensible  reform  of  the  tariff — that  is 
to  say,  I  do  not  wish  to  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  few  to 
practice  extortion  upon  the  many.  Congress  should  always 
be  wide  awake,  and  whenever  there  is  any  abuse  it  should  be 
corrected.  At  the  same  time,  next  to  having  the  tariff  just 
— next  in  importance  is  to  have  it  stable.  It  does  us  great 
injury  to  have  every  dollar  invested  in  manufactures  fright- 
ened every  time  Congress  meets.  Capital  should  feel  se- 
cure. Insecurity  calls  for  a  higher  interest,  wants  to  make 
tip  for  the  additional  risk,  whereas,  when  a  dollar  feels  ab- 
solutely certain  that  it  is  well  invested,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
disturbed,  it  is  satisfied  with  a  very  low  rate  of  interest. 

The  present  agitation — the  message  of  President  Cleve- 
land upon  these  questions — will  cost  the  country  many 
hundred  millions  of  dollars. 


INTERVIEWS.  333 

Question.  I  see  that  some  one  has  been  charging  that 
Judge  Gresham  is  an  Infidel  ? 

Answer.  I  have  known  Judge  Gresham  for  many  years, 
and  of  course  have  heard  him  talk  upon  many  subjects,  but 
I  do  not  remember  ever  discussing  with  him  a  religious 
topic.  I  only  know  that  he  believes  in  allowing  every  man 
to  express  his  opinions,  and  that  he  does  not  hate  a  man 
because  he  differs  with  him.  I  believe  that  he  believes  in 
intellectual  hospitalit)^,and  that  he  would  give  all  churches 
equal  rights,  and  would  treat  them  all  with  the  utmost 
fairness.  I  regard  him  as  a  fair-minded,  intelligent  and 
honest  man,  and  that  is  enough  for  me.  I  am  satisfied 
with  the  way  he  acts,  and  care  nothing  about  his  particular 
creed.  I  like  a  manly  man,  whether  he  agrees  with  me  or 
not.  I  believe  that  President  Garfield  was  a  minister  of 
the  Church  of  the  Disciples — that  made  no  difference  to  me. 
Mr.  Blaine  is  a  member  of  some  church  in  Augusta — I 
care  nothing  for  that.  Whether  Judge  Gresham  belongs  to 
any  church,  I  do  not  know.  I  never  asked  him,  but  I 
know  he  does  not  agree  with  me  by  a  large  majority. 

In  this  country,  where  a  divorce  has  been  granted  between 
church  and  state,  the  religious  opinions  of  candidates  should 
be  let  alone.  To  make  the  inquiry  is  a  piece  of  imperti- 
nence— a  piece  of  impudence.  I  have  voted  for  men  of  all 
persuasions  and  expect  to  keep  right  on,  and  if  they  are  not 
civilized  enough  to  give  me  the  liberty  they  ask  for  them- 
selves, why  I  shall  simply  set  them  an  example  of  decency. 

Qtcestion.  What  do  you  think  of  the  political  outlook  ? 

Answer.  The  people  of  this  country  have  a  great  deal  of 
intelligence.  Tariff  and  free  trade  and  protection  and  home 
manufactures  and  American  industries — all  these  things 
will  be  discussed  in  every  schoolhouse  of  the  country,  and 
in  thousands  and  thousands  of  political  meetings,  and  when 
next  November  comes  you  will  see  the  Democratic  party 
overthrown  and  swept  out  of  power  by  a  cyclone.  All  other 


334  INTERVIEWS. 

questions  will  be  lost  sight  of.  Even  the  Prohibitionists 
would  rather  drink  beer  in  a  prosperous  country  than  burst 
with  cold  water  and  hard  times. 

The  preservation  of  what  we  have  will  be  the  great 
question.  This  is  the  richest  country  and  the  most  pros- 
perous country,  and  I  believe  that  the  people  have  sense 
enough  to  continue  the  policy  that  has  given  them  these 
results.  I  never  want  to  see  the  civilization  of  the  Old 
World,  or  rather  the  barbarism  of  the  Old  World,  gain  a 
footing  on  this  continent.  I  am  an  American.  I  believe 
in  American  ideas — that  is  to  say,  in  equal  rights,  and  in 
the  education  and  civilization  of  all  the  people. — New  York 

Press,  June  3, 1888. 

CLEVELAND  AND  THURMAN. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Democratic  nomin- 
ations ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  hope  that  this  campaign  is 
to  be  fought  on  the  issues  involved,  and  not  on  the  private 
characters  of  the  candidates.  All  that  they  have  done  as 
politicians — all  measures  that  they  have  favored  or  opposed 
— these  are  the  proper  subjects  of  criticism ;  in  all  other 
respects  I  think  it  better  to  let  the  candidates  alone.  I 
care  but  little  about  the  private  character  of  Mr.  Cleveland 
or  of  Mr.  Thurman.  The  real  question  is,  what  do  they 
stand  for  ?  What  policy  do  they  advocate  ?  What  are  the 
reasons  for  and  against  the  adoption  of  the  policy  they 
propose  ? 

I  do  not  regard  Cleveland  as  personally  popular.  He 
has  done  nothing,  so  far  as  I  know,  calculated  to  endear 
him  to  the  popular  heart.  He  certainly  is  not  a  man  of 
enthusiasm.  He  has  said  nothing  of  a  striking  or  forcible 
character.  His  messages  are  exceedingly  commonplace. 
He  is  not  a  man  of  education,  of  wide  reading,  of  refined 
tastes,  or  of  general  cultivation.     He  has   some   firmness 


INTERVIEWS.  335 

and  a  good  deal  of  obstinacy,  and  he  was  exceedingly  for- 
tunate in  his  marriage. 

Four  years  ago  he  was  distinctly  opposed  to  a  second 
term.  He  was  then  satisfied  that  no  man  should  be  elected 
President  more  than  once.  He  was  then  fearful  that  a 
President  might  use  his  ofl&ce,  his  appointing  power,  to 
further  his  own  ends  instead  of  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
He  started,  undoubtedly,  with  that  idea  in  his  mind.  He 
was  going  to  carry  out  the  civil  service  doctrine  to  the 
utmost.  But  when  he  had  been  President  a  few  months 
he  was  exceedingly  unpopular  with  his  party.  The 
Democrats  who  elected  him  had  been  out  of  office  for 
twenty-five  years.  During  all  those  years  they  had 
watched  the  Republicans  sitting  at  the  national  banquet. 
Their  appetites  had  grown  keener  and  keener,  and  they  ex- 
pected when  the  4th  of  March,  1885,  came  that  the  Repub- 
licans would  be  sent  from  the  table  and  that  they  would 
be  allowed  to  tuck  the  napkins  under  their  chins.  The  mo- 
ment Cleveland  got  at  the  head  of  the  table  he  told  his 
hungry  followers  that  there  was  nothing  for  them,  and  he 
allowed  the  Republicans  to  go  on  as  usual. 

In  a  little  while  he  began  to  hope  for  a  second  term,  and 
gradually  the  civil  service  notion  faded  from  his  mind.  He 
stuck  to  it  long  enough  to  get  the  principal  mugwump 
papers  committed  to  him  and  to  his  policy ;  long  enough 
to  draw  their  fire  and  to  put  them  in  a  place  where  they 
could  not  honorably  retreat  without  making  themselves 
liable  to  the  charge  of  having  fought  only  for  the  loaves 
and  fishes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  men  were  hungrier  for 
office  than  the  gentlemen  who  had  done  so  much  for  civil 
service  reform.  They  were  so  earnest  in  the  advocacy  of 
that  principle  that  they  insisted  that  only  their  followers 
should  have  place  ;  but  the  real  rank  and  file,  the  men  who 
had  been  Democrats  through  all  the  disastrous  years,  and 
who  had  prayed  and  fasted,  became  utterly  disgusted  with 


33^  INTERVIEWS. 

Mr.  Cleveland's  administration  and  they  were  not  slow  to 
express  their  feelings.  Mr.  Cleveland  saw  that  he  was  in 
danger  of  being  left  with  no  supporters,  except  a  few  who 
thought  themselves  too  respectable  really  to  join  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  So  for  the  last  two  years,  and  especially  for 
the  last  year,  he  turned  his  attention  to  pacifying  the  real 
Democrats.  He  is  not  the  choice  of  the  Democratic  party. 
Although  unanimously  nominated,  I  doubt  if  he  was  the 
unanimous  choice  of  a  single  delegate. 

Another  very  great  mistake,  I  think,  has  been  made  by 
Mr.  Cleveland.  He  seems  to  have  taken  the  greatest  de- 
light in  vetoing  pension  bills,  and  they  seem  to  be  about  the 
only  bills  that  he  has  examined,  and  he  has  examined  them 
as  a  lawyer  would  examine  the  declaration,  brief  or  plea 
of  his  opponent.  He  has  sought  for  technicalities,  to  the 
end  that  he  might  veto  these  bills.  By  this  course  he  has 
lost  the  soldier  vote,  and  there  is  no  way  by  which  he  can 
regain  it.  Upon  this  point  I  regard  the  President  as  ex- 
ceedingly weak.  He  has  shown  about  the  same  feeling 
toward  the  soldier  now  that  he  did  during  the  war.  He  was 
not  with  them  then  either  in  mind  or  body.  He  is  not  with 
them  now.  His  sympathies  are  on  the  other  side.  He  has 
taken  occasion  to  show  his  contempt  for  the  Democratic 
party  again  and  again.  This  certainly  will  not  add  to  his 
strength.  He  has  treated  the  old  leaders  with  great  arro- 
gance. He  has  cared  nothing  for  their  advice,  for  their 
opinions,  or  for  their  feelings. 

The  principal  vestige  of  monarchy  or  despotism  in  our 
Constitution  is  the  veto  power,  and  this  has  been  more 
liberally  used  by  Mr.  Cleveland  than  by  any  other  Presi- 
dent. This  shows  the  nature  of  the  man  and  how  narrow 
he  is,  and  through  what  a  small  intellectual  aperture  he 
views  the  world.  Nothing  is  farther  from  true  democracy 
than  this  perpetual  application  of  the  veto  power.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  should  be  abolished,  and  the  utmost  that  a 


INTERVIEWS.  337 

President  should  be  allowed  to  do,would  be  to  return  a  bill 
with  his  objections,  and  the  bill  should  then  become  a  law 
on  being  passed  by  both  houses  by  a  simple  majority. 
This  would  give  the  Executive  the  opportunity  of  calling 
attention  to  the  supposed  defects,  and  getting  the  judgment 
of  Congress  a  second  time. 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  Mr.  Cleveland  is  not  popular 
with  his  party.  The  noise  and  confusion  at  the  convention, 
the  cheers  and  cries,  were  all  produced  and  manufactured 
for  effect  and  for  the  purpose  of  starting  the  campaign. 

Now,  as  to  Senator  Thurman.  During  the  war  he  occu- 
pied substantially  the  same  position  occupied  by  Mr.  Cleve- 
land. He  was  opposed  to  putting  down  the  Rebellion  by 
force,  and  as  I  remember  it,  he  rather  justified  the  people 
of  the  South  for  going  with  their  States.  Ohio  was  in  favor 
of  putting  down  the  Rebellion,  yet  Mr.  Thurman,  by  some 
peculiar  logic  of  his  own,  while  he  justified  Southern  peo- 
ple for  going  into  rebellion  because  they  followed  their 
States,  justified  himself  for  not  following  his  State.  His 
State  was  for  the  Union.  His  State  was  in  favor  of  putting 
down  rebellion.  His  State  was  in  favor  of  destroying 
slavery.  Certainly,  if  a  man  is  bound  to  follow  his  State, 
he  is  equally  bound  when  the  State  is  right.  It  is  hardly 
reasonable  to  say  that  a  man  is  only  bound  to  follow  his 
State  when  his  State  is  wrong:  yet  this  was  really  the 
position  of  Senator  Thurman. 

I  saw  the  other  day  that  some  gentlemen  in  this  city  had 
given  as  a  reason  for  thinking  that  Thurman  would 
strengthen  the  ticket,  that  he  had  always  been  right  on  the 
financial  question.  Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  was  al- 
ways wrong.  When  it  was  necessary  for  the  Government 
to  issue  greenbacks,  he  was  a  hard  money  man — he  believed 
in  the  mint  drops — and  if  that  policy  had  been  carried  out, 
the  Rebellion  could  not  have  been  suppressed.  After  the 
suppression   of    the   Rebellion,   and   when   hundreds   and 


33^  INTERVIEWS. 

hundreds  of  millions  of  greenbacks  were  afloat,  and  the 
Republican  party  proposed  to  redeem  them  in  gold,  and  to 
go  back — as  it  always  intended  to  do — to  hard  money — to 
a  gold  and  silver  basis — then  Senator  Thurman,  holding 
aloft  the  red  bandanna,  repudiated  hard  money,  opposed 
resumption,  and  came  out  for  rag  currency  as  being  the 
best.  Let  him  change  his  ideas — put  those  first  that  he  had 
last — and  you  might  say  that  he  was  right  on  the  currenc}^ 
question ;  but  when  the  country  needed  the  greenback  he 
was  opposed  to  it,  and  when  the  country  was  able  to  redeem 
the  greenback,  he  was  opposed  to  it. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  say  that  I  regard  Senator  Thur- 
man as  a  man  of  ability,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  he 
was  coaxed  into  his  last  financial  position  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  by  the  necessities  of  Ohio,  and  by  the  force  and 
direction  of  the  political  wind.  No  matter  how  much  re- 
spectability he  adds  to  the  ticket,  I  do  not  believe  that  he 
will  give  any  great  strength.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  an 
old  man.  He  has  substantially  finished  his  career.  Young 
men  cannot  attach  themselves  to  him,  because  he  has  no 
future.  His  following  is  not  an  army  of  the  young  and  am- 
bitious— it  is  rather  a  funeral  procession.  Yet,  notwith- 
standing this  fact,  he  will  furnish  most  of  the  enthusiasm 
for  this  campaign — and  that  will  be  done  with  his  handker- 
chief. The  Democratic  banner  is  Thurman's  red  bandanna. 
I  do  not  believe  that  it  will  be  possible  for  the  Democracy 
to  carry  Ohio  by  reason  of  Thurman's  nomination,  and  I 
think  the  failure  to  nominate  Gray  or  some  good  man 
from  that  State,  will  lose  Indiana.  So,  while  I  have  noth- 
ing to  say  against  Senator  Thurman,  nothing  against  his 
integrity  or  his  ability,  still,  under  the  circumstances,  I  do 
not  think  his  nomination  a  strong  one. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  nominations  have  been 
well  received  throughout  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  Not  as  well  as  in  England.     I  see  that  all  the 


I 


INTERVIEWS.  339 

Tory  papers  regard  the  nominations  as  excellent — especi- 
ally that  of  Cleveland.  Every  Englishman  who  wants 
Ireland  turned  into  a  penitentiary,  and  everj^  Irishman  to 
be  treated  as  a  convict,  is  delighted  with  the  action  of  the 
St.  Louis  convention.  England  knows  what  she  wants. 
Her  market  is  growing  small.  A  few  years  ago  she  fur- 
nished manufactured  articles  to  a  vast  portion  of  the  world. 
Millions  of  her  customers  have  become  ingenious  enough 
to  manufacture  many  things  that  they  need,  so  the  next 
thing  England  did  was  to  sell  them  the  machinery.  Now 
they  are  beginning  to  make  their  own  machinery.  Conse- 
quently, English  trade  is  falling  ofiF.  She  must  have  new 
customers.  Nothing  would  so  gratify  her  as  to  have  sixty 
millions  of  Americans  buy  her  wares.  If  she  could  see  our 
factories  still  and  dead  ;  if  she  could  put  out  the  fires  of  our 
furnaces  and  forges ;  there  would  come  to  her  the  greatest 
prosperity  she  has  ever  known.  She  would  fatten  on  our 
misfortunes — grow  rich  and  powerful  and  arrogant  upon 
our  poverty.  We  would  become  her  servants.  We  would 
raise  the  raw  material  with  ignorant  labor  and  allow  her 
children  to  reap  all  the  profit  of  its  manufacture,  and  in  the 
meantime  to  become  intelligent  and  cultured  while  we  grew 
poor  and  ignorant. 

The  greatest  blow  that  can  be  inflicted  upon  England  is 
to  keep  her  manufactured  articles  out  of  the  United  States. 
Sixty  millions  of  Americans  buy  and  use  more  than  five 
hundred  millions  of  Asiatics — buy  and  use  more  than  all 
of  China,  all  of  India  and  all  of  Africa.  One  civilized  man 
has  a  thousand  times  the  wants  of  a  savage  or  of  a  semi- 
barbarian.  Most  of  the  customers  of  England  want  a  few 
yards  of  calico,  some  cheap  jewelry,  a  little  powder,  a  few 
knives  and  a  few  gallons  of  orthodox  rum. 

To-day  the  United  States  is  the  greatest  market  in  the 
world.  The  commerce  between  the  States  is  almost  incon- 
ceivable in  its  immensity.     In  order  that  you  may  have 


340  INTERVIEWSo 

some  idea  of  the  commerce  of  this  country,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  remember  one  fact  We  have  railroads  enough  en- 
gaged in  this  commerce  to  make  six  lines  around  the 
globe.  The  addition  of  a  million  Americans  to  our  popu- 
lation gives  us  a  better  market  than  a  monopoly  of  ten 
millions  of  Asiatics.  England,  with  her  workhouses,  with 
her  labor  that  barely  exists,  wishes  this  market,  and  wishes 
to  destroy  the  manufactures  of  America,  and  she  expects 
Irish- Americans  to  assist  her  in  this  patriotic  business. 

Now,  as  to  the  enthusiasm  in  this  country.  I  fail  to  see 
it.  The  nominations  have  fallen  flat.  There  is  no  enthusi- 
asm among  the  Democrats.  It  has  been  known  for  a  long 
time  that  Cleveland  was  to  be  nominated.  That  has  all 
been  discounted,  and  the  nomination  of  Judge  Thurman 
has  been  received  in  a  quite  matter-of-fact  wslj.  It  may  be 
that  this  enthusiasm  was  somewhat  dampened  by  what 
might  be  called  the  appearance  above  the  horizon  of  the 
morning  star  of  this  campaign — Oregon.  What  a  star  to 
rise  over  the  work  of  the  St.  Louis  convention  !  What  a 
prophecy  for  Democrats  to  commence  business  with ! 
Oregon,  with  the  free  trade  issue,  seven  thousand  to  eight 
thousand  Republican  majority — the  largest  ever  given  by 
that  State — Oregon  speaks  for  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Democratic  plat- 
form ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Watterson  was  kind  enough  to  say  that  be- 
fore they  took  the  roof  off  the  house  they  were  going  to 
give  the  occupants  a  chance  to  get  out.  B}^  the  "  house  "  I 
suppose  he  means  the  great  workshop  of  America.  By  the 
"  roof"  he  means  protection  ;  and  by  the  "  occupants"  the 
mechanics.  He  is  not  going  to  turn  them  out  at  once,  or 
take  the  roof  off  in  an  instant,  but  this  is  to  be  done  gradu- 
ally. 

In  other  words,  they  will  remove  it  shingle  by  shingle, 
or  tile  by  tile,  until  it  becomes  so  leaky  or  so  unsafe  that 


INTERVIEWS,  341 

the  occupants — that  is  to  say,  the  mechanics,  will  leave 
the  building. 

The  first  thing  in  the  platform  is  a  reaffirmation  of  the 
platform  of  1884,  and  an  unqualified  endorsement  of  Presi- 
dent Cleveland's  message  on  the  tariff.  And  if  President 
Cleveland's  message  has  any  meaning  whatever,  it  means 
free  trade — not  instantly,  it  may  be — but  that  is  the  object 
and  the  end  to  be  attained.  All  his  reasoning,  if  reasoning  it 
can  be  called,  is  in  favor  of  absolute  free  trade.  The  issue 
is  fairly  made — shall  American  labor  be  protected,  or  must 
the  American  laborer  take  his  chances  with  the  labor 
market  of  the  world  ?  Must  he  stand  upon  an  exact  par 
with  the  laborers  of  Belgium  and  England  and  Germany, 
not  only,  but  with  the  slaves  and  serfs  of  other  countries  ? 
Must  he  be  reduced  to  the  diet  of  the  old  country  ?  Is  he 
to  have  meat  on  holidays  and  a  reasonably  good  dinner  on 
Christmas,  and  live  the  rest  of  the  year  on  crusts,  crumbs, 
scraps,  skimmed  milk,  potatoes,  turnips  and  a  few  greens 
that  he  can  steal  from  the  corners  of  fences  ?  Is  he  to  rely 
for  meat,  on  poaching,  and  then  is  he  to  be  transported  to 
some  far  colony  for  the  crime  of  catching  a  rabbit  ?  Are 
our  workingmen  to  wear  wooden  shoes  ? 

Now,  understand  me,  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Demo- 
crats think  that  free  trade  would  result  in  disaster.  Their 
minds  are  so  constituted  that  they  really  believe  that  free 
trade  would  be  a  great  blessing.  I  am  not  calling  in  ques- 
tion their  honesty.  I  am  simply  disputing  the  correctness 
of  their  theory.  It  makes  no  difference,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
whether  they  are  honest  or  dishonest.  Free  trade  estab- 
lished by  honest  people  would  be  just  as  injurious  as 
if  established  by  dishonest  people.  So  there  is  no 
necessity  of  raising  the  question  of  intention.  Conse- 
quently, I  admit  that  they  are  doing  the  best  they  know 
how.  This  is  not  admitting  much,  but  it  is  something, 
as  it  tends  to  take  from  the  discussion  all  ill  feeling. 


342 


INTERVIEWS. 


We  all  know  that  the  tariff  protects  special  interests  in  par- 
ticular States.  Louisiana  is  not  for  free  trade.  It  may  be  for 
free  trade  in  everything  except  sugar.  It  is  willing  that  all 
the  rest  of  the  country  should  pay  an  additional  cent  or  two 
a  pound  on  sugar  for  its  benefit,  and  while  receiving  that 
benefit  it  does  not  wish  to  bear  its  part  of  the  burden.  If 
the  other  States  protect  the  sugar  interests  in  Louisiana, 
certainly  that  State  ought  to  be  willing  to  protect  the  wool 
interest  in  Ohio,  the  lead  and  hemp  interest  in  Missouri, 
the  lead  and  wool  interest  in  Colorado,  the  lumber  interest 
in  Minnesota,  the  salt  and  lumber  interest  in  Michigan, 
the  iron  interest  in  Pennsylvania,  and  so  I  might  go  on 
with  a  list  of  the  States — because  each  one  has  something 
that  it  wishes  to  have  protected. 

It  sounds  a  little  strange  to  hear  a  Democratic  convention 
cry  out  that  the  party  "  is  in  favor  of  the  maintenance  of  an 
indissoluble  union  of  free  and  indestructible  States."  Only 
a  little  while  ago  the  Democratic  party  regarded  it  as  the 
height  of  tyranny  to  coerce  a  free  State.  Can  it  be  said 
that  a  State  is  "  free"  that  is  absolutely  governed  by  the 
Nation  ?  Is  a  State  free  that  can  make  no  treaty  with  any 
other  State  or  country — that  is  not  permitted  to  coin  money 
or  to  declare  war  ?  Why  should  such  a  State  be  called 
free  ?  The  truth  is  that  the  States  are  not  free  in  that  sense. 
The  Republican  party  believes  that  this  is  a  Nation  and 
that  the  national  power  is  the  highest,  and  that  every  citi- 
zen owes  the  highest  allegiance  to  the  General  Government 
and  not  to  his  State.  In  other  words,  we  are  not  Virginians 
or  Mississippians  or  Delawarians — we  are  Americans.  The 
great  Republic  is  a  free  Nation,  and  the  States  are  but 
parts  of  that  Nation.  The  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty 
was  born  of  the  institution  of  slavery.  In  the  history  of 
our  countrj^,  whenever  anything  wrong  was  to  be  done, 
this  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty  was  appealed  to.  It 
protected  the  slave-trade  until  the  year  1808.     It  passed 


INTERVIEWS.  343 

the  Fugitive  Slave  Law.  It  made  every  citizen  in  the 
North  a  catcher  of  his  fellow-men — made  it  the  duty  of 
free  people  to  enslave  others.  This  doctrine  of  State  Rights 
was  appealed  to  for  the  purpose  of  polluting  the  Territories 
with  the  institution  of  slavery.  To  deprive  a  man  of  his 
liberty,  to  put  him  back  into  slavery,  State  lines  were  in- 
stantly obliterated  ;  but  whenever  the  Government  wanted 
to  protect  one  of  its  citizens  from  outrage,  then  the  State 
lines  became  impassable  barriers,  and  the  sword  of  justice 
fell  in  twain  across  the  line  of  a  State. 

People  forget  that  the  National  Government  is  the  creature 
of  the  people.  The  real  sovereign  is  the  people  them- 
selves. Presidents  and  congressmen  and  judges  are  the 
creatures  of  the  people.  If  we  had  a  governing  class — if 
men  were  presidents  or  senators  by  virtue  of  birth — then 
we  might  talk  about  the  danger  of  centralization  ;  but  if 
the  people  are  sufficiently  intelligent  to  govern  themselves, 
they  will  never  create  a  government  for  the  destruction  of 
their  liberties,  and  they  are  just  as  able  to  protect  their 
rights  in  the  General  Government  as  they  are  in  the  States. 
If  you  say  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  State  protects  labor, 
3^ou  might  as  well  say  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  county 
protects  labor  in  the  State  and  that  the  sovereignty  of  the 
town  protects  labor  in  the  county. 

Of  all  subjects  in  the  world  the  Democratic  party  should 
avoid  speaking  of  "  a  critical  period  of  our  financial  affairs, 
resulting  from  over  taxation."  How  did  taxation  become 
necessary?  Who  created  the  vast  debt  that  American 
labor  must  pay  ?  Who  made  this  taxation  of  thousands 
of  millions  necessary?  Why  were  the  greenbacks  issued? 
Why  were  the  bonds  sold  ?  Who  brought  about  *'a  critical 
period  of  our  financial  affairs  "  ?  How  has  the  Democratic 
party  "  averted  disaster  "  ?  How  could  there  be  a  disaster 
with  a  vast  surplus  in  the  treasury  ?  Can  you  find  in  the 
graveyard  of  nations  this  epitaph:  "Died  of  a  Surplus"? 


344  INTERVIEWS. 

Has  any  nation  ever  been  known  to  perish  because  it  had 
too  much  gold  and  too  much  silver,  and  because  its  credit 
was  better  than  that  of  any  other  nation  on  the  earth  ? 
The  Democrats  seem  to  think — and  it  is  greatly  to  their 
credit — that  they  have  prevented  the  destruction  of  the 
Government  when  the  treasury  was  full — when  the  vaults 
were  overflowing.  What  would  they  have  done  had  the 
vaults  been  empty  ?  Let  them  wrestle  with  the  question  of 
poverty ;  let  them  then  see  how  the  Democratic  party  would 
succeed.  When  it  is  necessary  to  create  credit,  to  inspire 
confidence,  not  only  in  our  own  people,  but  in  the  nations 
of  the  world — which  of  the  parties  is  best  adapted  for  that 
task?  The  Democratic  party  congratulates  itself  that  it 
has  not  been  ruined  by  a  Republican  surplus !  What  good 
boys  we  are !  We  have  not  been  able  to  throw  away  our 
legac3^ ! 

Is  it  not  a  little  curious  that  the  convention  plumed 
itself  on  having  paid  out  more  for  pensions  and  bounties 
to  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  the  Republic  than  was  ever 
paid  befoare  during  an  equal  period?  It  goes  wild  in  its 
pretended  enthusiasm  for  the  President  who  has  vetoed 
more  pension  bills  than  all  the  other  Presidents  put  together. 

The  platform  informs  us  that  ''  the  Democratic  party  has 
adopted  and  consistently  pursued  and  affirmed  a  prudent 
foreign  policy,  preserving  peace  with  all  nations.  "  Does 
it  point  with  pride  to  the  Mexican  fiasco,  or  does  it  rely 
entirely  upon  the  great  fishery  triumph  ?  What  has  the 
administration  done — what  has  it  accomplished  in  the  field 
of  diplomacy  ? 

When  we  come  to  civil  service,  about  how  many  Federal 
officials  were  at  the  St.  Louis  convention?  About  how 
many  have  taken  part  in  the  recent  nominations?  In 
other  words,  who  has  been  idle  ? 

We  have  recently  been  told  that  the  wages  of  workings 
men  are  just  as  high  in  the  old  country  as  in  this,  when  you 


INTERVIEWS.  345 

take  into  consideration  the  cost  of  living.  We  have  always 
been  told  by  all  the  free  trade  papers  and  orators,  that  the 
tariff  has  no  bearing  whatever  upon  wages,  and  yet,  the 
Democrats  have  not  succeeded  in  convincing  themselves. 
I  find  in  their  platform  this  language :  *'A  fair  and  careful 
revision  of  our  tax  laws,  with  due  allowance  for  the  differ- 
ence between  the  wages  of  American  and  foreign  labor, 
must  promote  and  encourage  every  branch  of  such  indus- 
tries and  enterprises  by  giving  them  the  assurance  of  an 
extended  market  and  steady  and  continuous  operations.  '* 
It  would  seem  from  this  that  the  Democratic  party  ad= 
mits  that  wages  are  higher  here  than  in  foreign  countries. 
Certainly  they  do  not  mean  to  say  that  they  arc  lower.  If 
they  are  higher  here  than  in  foreign  countries,  the  question 
arises,  why  are  they  higher  ?  If  you  took  off  all  the  tariff, 
the  presumption  is  that  they  would  be  as  low  here  as  any- 
where else,  because  this  very  Democratic  convention  says  : 
"A  fair  and  careful  revision  of  our  tax  laws,  with  due 
allowance  for  the  difference  between  wages."  In  other 
words,  they  would  keep  tariff  enough  on  to  protect  our 
workingmen  from  the  low  wages  of  the  foreigner — con- 
sequently, we  have  the  admission  of  the  Democratic  party 
that  in  order  to  keep  wages  in  this  country  higher  than 
they  are  in  Belgium,  in  Italy,  in  England  and  in  Germany, 
we  must  protect  home  labor.  Then  follows  the  no7t 
sequitur,  which  is  a  Democratic  earmark.  They  tell  us 
that  by  keeping  a  tariff,  "  making  due  allowance  for  the 
difference  between  wages,  all  the  industries  and  enterprises 
would  be  encouraged  and  promoted  by  giving  them  the 
assurance  of  an  extended  market."  What  does  the  word 
"  extended"  mean  ?  If  it  means  anything,  it  means  a  mar- 
ket in  other  countries.  In  other  words,  we  will  put  the 
tariff  so  low  that  the  wages  of  American  workingmen  will 
be  so  low  that  he  can  compete  with  the  laborers  of  other 
countries ;  otherwise,  his  market  could  not  be  "  extended." 


34^  INTERVIEWS. 

What  does  this  mean  ?  There  is  evidently  a  lack  of  thought 
here.  The  two  things  cannot  be  accomplished  in  that  way. 
If  the  tariff  raises  American  wages,  the  American  cannot 
compete  in  foreign  markets  with  the  men  who  work  at 
half  the  price.  What  may  be  the  final  result  is  another 
question.  American  industry  properly  protected,  American 
genius  properly  fostered,  may  invent  ways  and  means — 
such  wonderful  machinery,  such  quick,  inexpensive  pro- 
cesses, that  in  time  American  genius  may  produce  at  a  less 
rate  than  any  other  country,  for  the  reason  that  the  laborers 
of  other  countries  will  not  be  as  intelligent,  will  not  be  as 
independent,  will  not  have  the  same  ambition. 

Fine  phrases  will  not  deceive  the  people  of  this  country. 
The  American  mechanic  already  has  a  market  of  sixty 
millions  of  people,  and,  as  I  said  before,  the  best  market  in 
the  world.  This  country  is  now  so  rich,  so  prosperous, 
that  it  is  the  greatest  market  of  the  earth,  even  for  luxuries. 
It  is  the  best  market  for  pictures,  for  works  of  art.  It 
is  the  best  market  for  music  and  song.  It  is  the  best  mar- 
ket for  dramatic  genius,  and  it  is  the  best  market  for 
skilled  labor,  the  best  market  for  common  labor,  and  in 
this  country  the  poor  man  to-day  has  the  best  chance — he 
can  look  forward  to  becoming  the  proprietor  of  a  home,  of 
some  land,  to  independence,  to  respectability,  and  to  an  old 
age  without  want  and  without  disgrace. 

The  platform,  except  upon  this  question  of  free  trade, 
means  very  little.  There  are  other  features  in  it  which  I 
have  not  at  present  time  to  examine,  but  shall  do  so  here- 
after. I  want  to  take  it  up  point  by  point  and  find  really 
what  it  means,  what  its  scope  is,  and  what  the  intentions 
were  of  the  gentlemen  that  made  it. 

But  it  may  be  proper  to  say  here,  that  in  my  judgment 
it  is  a  very  weak  and  flimsy  document,  as  Victor  Hugo 
would  say,  "badly  cut  and  badly  sewed." 

Of  course,  I  know  that  the  country  will  exist  whatever 


INTER  VIE  WvS,  ■  347 

party  may  be  in  power,  I  know  that  all  our  blessings  do 
not  come  from  laws,  or  from  the  carrying  into  effect  of  cer- 
tain policies,  and  probably  I  could  pay  no  greater  compli= 
ment  to  my  country  than  to  say  that  even  eight  years  of 
Democratic  rule  cannot   materially   affect   her   destiny, — 

New  York  Press,  June  10, 1888. 

THE  REPUBLICAN  PLATFORM  OF  1888. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  signs  of  the  times  so 
far  as  the  campaign  has  progressed  ? 

Answer.  The  party  is  now  going  through  a  period  of  mis- 
representation. Every  absurd  meaning  that  can  be  given 
to  any  combination  of  words  will  be  given  to  every  part  of 
the  platfc>rm.  In  the  heat  of  partisan  hatred  every  plank 
will  look  warped  and  cracked.  A  great  effort  is  being 
made  to  show  that  the  Republican  party  is  in  favor  of  in- 
temperance,— that  the  great  object  now  is  to  lessen  the  price 
of  all  intoxicants  and  increase  the  cost  of  all  the  necessaries 
of  life.  The  papers  that  are  for  nothing  but  reform  of 
everything  and  everybody  except  themselves,  are  doing 
their  utmost  to  show  that  the  Republican  party  is  the  enemy 
of  honesty  and  temperance. 

The  other  day,  at  a  Republican  ratification  meeting,  I 
stated  among  other  things,  that  we  could  not  make  great 
men  and  great  women  simply  b)^  keeping  them  out  of  tempta- 
tion— that  nobody  would  think  of  tying  the  hands  of  a  per- 
son behind  him  and  then  praise  him  for  not  picking  pockets; 
that  great  people  were  great  enough  to  withstand  tempta- 
tion, and  in  that  connection  I  made  this  statement:  ''Tem- 
perance goes  hand  in  hand  with  liberty — "  the  idea  being 
that  when  a  chain  is  taken  from  the  body  an  additional  obli- 
gation is  perceived  by  the  mind.  These  good  papers — 
the  papers  that  believe  in  honest  politics — stated  that  I 
said:  "Temperance  goes  hand  in  hand  with  liquor."  This 
was  not  only  in  the  reports  of  the  meeting,  but  this  passage 


348  INTERVIEWS. 

was  made  the  subject  of  several  editorials.  It  hardly  seems 
possible  that  any  person  really  thought  that  such  a  senti- 
ment had  been  expressed.  The  Republican  party  does  not 
want  free  whiskey — it  wants  free  men ;  and  a  great  many 
people  in  the  Republican  party  are  great  enough  to  know 
that  temperance  does  go  hand  in  hand  with  liberty ;  they  are 
great  enough  to  know  that  all  legislation  as  to  what  we  shall 
eat,  as  to  what  we  shall  drink,  and  as  to  wherewithal  we 
shall  be  clothed,  partakes  of  the  nature  of  petty,  irritating 
and  annoying  tyranny.  They  also  know  that  the  natural 
result  is  to  fill  a  country  with  spies,  hypocrites  and  pre- 
tenders, and  that  when  a  law  is  not  in  accordance  with  an 
enlightened  public  sentiment,  it  becomes  either  a  dead  letter, 
or,  when  a  few  fanatics  endeavor  to  enforce  it,  a  demoralizer 
of  courts,  of  juries  and  of  people. 

The  attack  upon  the  platform  by  temperance  people  is 
doing  no  harm,  for  the  reason  that  long  before  November 
comes  these  people  will  see  the  mistake  they  have  made.  It 
seems  somewhat  curious  that  the  Democrats  should  attack 
the  platform  if  they  really  believe  that  it  means  free  whis- 
key. 

The  tax  was  levied  during  the  war.  It  was  a  war 
measure.  The  Government  was  m  extremis,  and  for  that 
reason  was  obliged  to  obtain  a  revenue  from  every  possible 
article  of  value.  The  war  is  over ;  the  necessity  has  dis- 
appeared; consequently  the  Government  should  return  to 
the  methods  of  peace.  We  have  too  many  Government 
officers.  Let  us  get  rid  of  collectors  and  gangers  and  in- 
spectors. Let  us  do  away  with  all  this  machinery,  and  leave 
the  question  to  be  settled  by  the  State.  If  the  temperance 
people  themselves  would  take  a  second  thought,  they 
would  see  that  when  the  Government  collects  eighty 
or  ninety  million  dollars  from  a  tax  on  whiskey,  the 
traffic  becomes  entrenched,  it  becomes  one  of  the  pillars  of 
the  State,  one  of  the  great  sources  of  revenue.     Let  the 


INTERVIEWS,  349 

States  attend  to  this  question,  and  it  will  be  a  matter  far 
easier  to  deal  with. 

The  Prohibitionists  are  undoubtedly  honest,  and  their 
object  is  to  destroy  the  traffic,  to  prevent  the  manufacture  of 
whiskey.  Can  they  do  this  as  long  as  the  Government  col- 
lects ninety  million  dollars  per  annum  from  that  one  source? 
If  there  is  anything  whatever  in  this  argument,  is  it  not  that 
the  traffic  pays  a  bribe  of  ninety  million  dollars  a  year  for 
its  life?  Will  not  the  farmers  say  to  the  temperance  men: 
"The  distilleries  pay  the  taxes,  the  distilleries  raise  the 
price  of  corn  ;  is  it  not  better  for  the  General  Government 
to  look  to  another  direction  for  its  revenues  and  leave  the 
States  to  deal  as  they  may  see  proper  with  this  question  ?  " 

With  me,  it  makes  no  difference  what  is  done  with  the 
liquor — whether  it  is  used  in  the  arts  or  not — it  is  a  question 
of  policy.  There  is  no  moral  principle  involved  on  our  side 
of  the  question,  to  say  the  least  of  it.  If  it  is  a  crime  to 
make  and  sell  intoxicating  liquors,  the  Government,  by 
licensing  persons  to  make  and  sell,  becomes  a  party  to  the 
crime.  If  one  man  poisons  another,  no  matter  how  much  the 
poison  costs,  the  crime  is  the  same ;  and  if  the  person  from 
whom  the  poison  was  purchased  knew  how  it  was  to  be  used, 
he  is  also  a  murderer. 

There  have  been  many  reformers  in  this  world,  and  they 
have  seemed  to  imagine  that  people  will  do  as  they  say. 
They  think  that  you  can  use  people  as  you  do  bricks  or 
stones ;  that  you  can  lay  them  up  in  walls  and  they  will 
remain  where  they  are  placed;  but  the  truth  is,  you  cannot 
do  this.  The  bricks  are  not  satisfied  with  each  other — they 
go  away  in  the  night — in  the  morning  there  is  no  wall. 
Most  of  these  reformers  go  up  what  you  might  call  the 
Mount  Sinai  of  their  own  egotism,  and  there,  surrounded  by 
the  clouds  of  their  own  ignorance,  they  meditate  upon  the 
follies  and  the  frailties  of  their  fellow-men  and  then  come 
down  with  ten  commandments  for  their  neighbors. 


350  INTERVIEWS. 

All  this  talk  about  the  Republican  platform  being  in  favor 
of  intemperance,  so  far  as  the  Democratic  party  is  concerned, 
is  pure,  unadulterated  hypocrisy — nothing  more,  nothing 
less.  So  far  as  the  Prohibitionists  are  concerned,  they  may 
be  perfectly  honest,  but,  if  they  will  think  a  moment,  they 
will  see  how  perfectly  illogical  they  are.  No  one  can  help 
sympathizing  with  any  effort  honestly  made  to  do  away  with 
the  evil  of  intemperance.  I  know  that  many  believe  that 
these  evils  can  be  done  away  with  by  legislation.  While  I 
S3mipathize  with  the  objects  that  these  people  wish  to  attain, 
I  do  not  believe  in  the  means  they  suggest.  As  life  be- 
comes valuable,  people  will  become  temperate,  because  they 
will  take  care  of  themselves.  Temperance  is  bom  of  the 
countless  influences  of  civilization.  Character  cannot  be 
forced  upon  anybody ;  it  is  a  growth,  the  seeds  of  which  are 
within.  Men  cannot  be  forced  into  real  temperance  any 
more  than  they  can  be  frightened  into  real  morality o  You 
may  frighten  a  man  to  that  degree  that  he  will  not  do  a  cer- 
tain thing,  but  you  cannot  scare  him  badly  enough  to  pre- 
vent his  wanting  to  do  that  thing.  Reformation  begins  on 
the  inside,  and  the  man  refrains  because  he  perceives  that 
he  ought  to  refrain,  not  because  his  neighbors  say  that  he 
ought  to  refrain.  No  one  would  think  of  praising  convicts 
in  a  jail  for  being  regular  at  their  meals,  or  for  not  staying 
out  nights;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  when  the  Prohibi- 
tionists— when  the  people  who  are  really  in  favor  of  tem- 
perance— look  the  ground  all  over  they  will  see  that  it  is  far 
better  to  support  the  Republican  party  than  the  Democratic 
— far  better  to  support  the  Republican  party  than  to  throw 
their  votes  away ;  and  the  Republicans  will  see  that  it  is 
simply  a  proposition  to  go  back  to  the  original  methods  of 
collecting  revenue  for  the  Government — that  it  is  simply 
abandoning  the  measures  made  necessary  by  war,  and  that 
it  is  giving  to  the  people  the  largest  liberty  consistent  with 
the  needs  of  the  Government,  and  that  it  is  only  leaving 


INTERVIEWS.  351 

these  questions  where  in  time  of  peace  they  properly  belong 
— to  the  States  themselves. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  Knights  of  Labor  will 
cut  any  material  figure  in  this  election  ? 

Answer,  The  Knights  of  Labor  will  probably  occupy 
substantially  the  same  position  as  other  laborers  and  other 
mechanics.  If  they  clearly  see  that  the  policy  advocated 
by  the  Republican  party  is  to  their  interest,  that  it  will 
give  them  better  wages  than  the  policy  advocated  by  the 
Democrats,  then  they  will  undoubtedly  support  our  ticket. 
There  is  more  or  less  irritation  between  employers  and  em- 
ployed. All  men  engaged  in  manufacturing  are  neither 
good  nor  generous.  Many  of  them  get  work  for  as  little  as 
possible,  and  sell  its  product  for  all  they  can  get.  It  is 
impossible  to  adopt  a  policy  that  will  not  by  such  people 
be  abused.  Many  of  them  would  like  to  see  the  working 
man  toil  for  twelve  hours  or  fourteen  or  sixteen  in  each 
day.  Many  of  them  wonder  why  they  need  sleep  or  food, 
and  are  perfectly  astonished  when  they  ask  for  pay.  In 
some  instances,  undoubtedly,  the  working  men  will  vote 
against  their  own  interests  simply  to  get  even  with  such 
employers. 

Some  laboring  men  have  been  so  robbed,  so  tyrannized 
over,  that  they  would  be  perfectly  willing  to  feel  for  the 
pillars  and  take  a  certain  delight  in  a  destruction  that 
brought  ruin  even  to  themselves.  Such  manufacturers, 
however,  I  believe  to  be  in  a  minority,  and  the  laboring 
men,  under  the  policy  of  free  trade,  would  be  far  more  in 
their  power.  When  wages  fall  below  a  certain  point,  then 
comes  degradation,  loss  of  manhood,  serfdom  and  slavery. 
If  any  man  has  the  right  to  vote  for  his  own  interests, 
certainly  the  man  who  labors  is  that  man,  and  every  work- 
ing man  having  in  his  will  a  part  of  the  sovereignty  of  this 
nation,  having  within  him  a  part  of  the  lawmaking  power, 
should  have  the  intelligence  and  courage  to  vote  for  his 


352  INTERVIEWS. 

own  interests ;  tie  should  vote  for  good  wages ;  he  should 
vote  for  a  policy  that  would  enable  him  to  lay  something 
by  for  the  winter  of  his  life,  that  would  enable  him  to  earn 
enough  to  educate  his  children,  enough  to  give  him  a  home 
and  a  fireside. 

He  need  not  do  this  in  anger  or  for  revenge,  but  because 
it  is  just,  because  it  is  right,  and  because  the  working  peo- 
ple are  in  a  majority.  They  ought  to  control  the  world, 
because  they  have  made  the  world  what  it  is.  They  ha\e 
given  everything  there  is  of  value.  Labor  plows  every 
field,  builds  every  house,  fashions  everything  of  use,  and 
when  that  labor  is  guided  by  intelligence  the  world  is 
prosperous. 

He  who  thinks  good  thoughts  is  a  laborer — one  of  the 
greatest.  The  man  who  invented  the  reaper  will  be  har- 
vesting the  fields  for  thousands  of  years  to  come.  If  labor 
is  abused  in  this  country  the  laborers  have  it  within  their 
power  to  defend  themselves. 

All  my  sympathies  are  with  the  men  who  toil.  I  shed 
very  few  tears  over  bankers  and  millionaires  and  corpora- 
tions— they  can  take  care  of  themselves.  My  sympathies 
are  Vv-ith  the  man  who  has  nothing  to  sell  but  his  strength ; 
nothing  to  sell  but  his  muscle  and  his  intelligence ;  who 
has  no  capital  except  that  which  his  mother  gave  him — a 
capital  that  he  must  sell  every  day ;  my  sympathies  are 
with  him;  and  I  want  him  to  have  a  good  market;  and  I 
want  it  so  that  he  can  sell  the  work  for  more  than  enough 
to  take  care  of  him  to-morrow. 

I  believe  that  no  corporation  should  be  allowed  to  exist 
except  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people.  The  Govern- 
ment should  always  act  for  the  benefit  of  all,  and  when  the 
Government  gives  a  part  of  its  power  to  an  aggregation  of 
individuals,  the  accomplishment  of  some  public  good 
should  justify  the  giving  of  that  power;  and  whenever  a 
corporation  becomes  subversive  of  the  very  end  for  which 


INTERVIEWS,  353 

ft  was  created,  the  Government  should  put  an  end  to  its 
life. 

So  I  believe  that  after  these  matters,  these  issues,  have 
been  discussed — when  something  is  understood  about  the 
effect  of  a  tariii,  tii^  ef  ect  of  protection,  the  laboring  peo- 
ple of  this  country  will  be  on  the  side  oi  tliv  Pe^tiblican 
partyo  The  Republican  party  is  always  trying  tc  do  some- 
thing— trying  to  take  a  step  in  advance.  Persons  who  care 
for  nothing  except  themselves — who  wish  to  make  no  effort 
except  for  themselves — are  its  natural  enemies. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Mr.  Mills'  Fourth  of 
July  speech  on  his  bill  ? 

Answer.  Certain  allowances  should  always  be  made  for 
the  Fourth  of  July.  What  Mr.  Mills  says  with  regard  to 
free  trade  depends,  I  imagine,  largely  on  where  he  happens 
to  be.  You  remember  the  old  story  about  the  Moniteur. 
When  Napoleon  escaped  from  Elba  that  paper  said  :  "  The 
ogre  has  escaped."  And  from  that  moment  the  epithets 
grew  a  little  less  objectionable  as  Napoleon  advanced,  and 
at  last  the  Moniteur  cried  out :  "  The  Emperor  has  reached 
Paris."  I  hardly  believe  that  Mr.  Mills  would  call  his  bill 
in  Texas  a  war  tariff  measure.  He  might  commence  in 
New  York  with  that  description,  but  as  he  went  South  that 
language,  in  my  judgment,  would  change,  and  when  he 
struck  the  Brazos  I  think  the  bill  would  be  described  as 
the  nearest  possible  approach  to  free  trade. 

Mr„  Mills  takes  the  ground  that  if  raw  material  comes 
here  free  of  duty,  then  we  can  manufacture  that  raw 
material  and  compete  with  other  countries  in  the  markets 
of  the  world— that  is  to  say,  under  his  bill.  Now,  other 
countries  can  certainly  get  the  raw  material  as  cheaply  as 
we  can,  especially  those  countries  in  which  the  raw  ma- 
terial is  raised;  and  if  wages  are  less  in  other  countries 
than  in  ours,  the  raw  material  being  the  same,  the  product 
must  cost  more  with  us  than  with  them.     Consequently  we 


354  INTERVIEWS. 

cannot  compete  with  foreign  countries  simply  by  getting 
the  raw  material  at  the  same  price ;  we  must  be  able  to  man- 
ufacture it  as  cheaply  as  they,  and  we  can  do  that  only  bj- 
cutting  down  the  wages  of  the  American  workingmen.  Be- 
cause, to  have  raw  material  at  the  same  price  as  other  na- 
tions, is  only  a  part  of  the  problem.  The  other  part  is, 
how  cheaply  can  we  manufacture  it?  And  that  depends 
upon  wages.  If  wages  are  twenty-five  cents  a  day,  then  we 
can  compete  with  those  nations  where  wages  are  twenty- 
five  cents  a  day ;  but  if  our  wages  are  five  or  six  times  as 
high,  then  the  twenty -five  cent  labor  will  supply  the  market. 
There  is  no  possible  way  of  putting  ourselves  on  an  equality 
with  other  countries  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  except  by 
putting  American  labor  on  an  equalit}^  with  the  other  labor 
of  the  world.  Consequently,  we  cannot  obtain  a  foreign 
market  without  lessening  our  wages.  No  proposition  can 
be  plainer  than  this. 

It  cannot  be  said  too  often  that  the  real  prosperity  of  a 
country  depends  upon  the  well-being  of  those  who  labor. 
That  country  is  not  prosperous  where  a  few  are  wealthy 
and  have  all  luxuries  that  the  imagination  can  suggest,  and 
where  the  millions  are  in  want,  clothed  in  rags,  and  housed 
in  tenements  not  fit  for  wild  beasts.  The  value  of  our 
property  depends  on  the  civilization  of  our  people.  If  the 
people  are  happy  and  contented,  if  the  workingman  re- 
ceives good  wages,  then  our  houses  and  our  farms  are  val- 
uable. If  the  people  are  discontented,  if  the  workingmen 
are  in  want,  then  our  property  depreciates  from  day  to  day, 
and  national  bankruptcy  will  only  be  a  question  of  time. 

If  Mr.  Mills  has  given  a  true  statement  with  regard  to 
the  measure  proposed  by  him,  what  relation  does  that 
measure  bear  to  the  President's  message  ?  What  has  it  to 
do  with  the  Democratic  platform  ?  If  Mr.  Mills  has  made 
no  mistake,  the  President  wrote  a  message  substantially  in 
favor  of  free  trade.     The  Democratic   party  ratified  and 


INTERVIEWS.  355 

indorsed  that  message,  and  at  the  same  time  ratified  and 
indorsed  the  Mills  bill.  Now,  the  message  was  for  free 
trade,  and  the  Mills  bill,  according  to  Mr.  Mills,  is  for  the 
purpose  of  sustaining  the  war  tariff.  They  have  either  got 
the  wrong  child  or  the  wrong  parents, 

Questio7i.  I  see  that  some  people  are  objecting  to  your 
taking  any  part  in  politics,  on  account  of  your  religious 
opinion  ? 

Answer.  The  Democratic  party  has  always  been  pious. 
If  it  is  noted  for  anything  it  is  for  its  extreme  devotion. 
You  have  no  idea  how  many  Democrats  wear  out  the 
toes  of  their  shoes  praying.  I  suppose  that  in  this  country 
there  ought  to  be  an  absolute  divorce  between  church  and 
state  and  without  any  alimonj^  being  allowed  to  the  church  ; 
and  I  have  always  supposed  that  the  Republican  party 
was  perfectly  willing  that  anybody  should  vote  its  ticket 
who  believed  in  its  principles.  The  party  was  not  estab- 
lished, as  I  understand  it,  in  the  interest  of  any  particular  de- 
nomination ;  it  was  established  to  promote  and  preserve  the 
freedom  of  the  American  citizen  everywhere.  Its  first  ob- 
ject was  to  prevent  the  spirit  of  human  slavery  ;  its  second 
object  was  to  put  down  the  Rebellion  and  preserve  the 
Union  ;  its  third  object  was  the  utter  destruction  of  human 
slavery  everywhere,  and  its  fourth  object  is  to  prCvServe  not 
only  the  fruit  of  all  that  it  has  done,  but  to  protect  Ameri- 
can industrj^  to  the  end  that  the  Republic  may  not  only  be 
free,  but  prosperous  and  happy.  In  this  great  work  all  are 
invited  to  join,  no  matter  whether  Catholics  or  Presbyte- 
rians or  Methodists  or  Infidels — believers  or  unbelievers. 
The  object  is  to  have  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  favor  of  human  liberty,  in  favor  of  justice 
and  in  favor  of  an  intelligent  American  policy. 

I  am  not  what  is  called  strictly  orthodox,  and  yet  I  am 
liberal  enough  to  vote  for  a  Presbyterian,  and  if  a  Presby- 
terian is  not  liberal  enough  to  stand  by  a  Republican,  no 


356  INTERVIEWS. 

matter  what  his  religious  opinions  may  be,  then  the  Presby- 
terian is  not  as  liberal  as  the  Republican  party,  and  he  is 
not  as  liberal  as  an  unbeliever;  in  other  words,  he  is  not  a 
manly  man„ 

I  object  to  no  man  who  is  running  for  office  on  the 
ticket  of  my  party  on  account  of  his  religious  convictions. 
I  care  nothing  about  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  member. 
That  is  his  business.  That  is  an  individual  matter — some- 
thing with  which  the  State  has  no  right  to  interfere — some- 
thing with  which  no  party  can  rightfully  have  anything  to 
do.  These  great  questions  are  left  open  to  discussion. 
Every  church  must  take  its  chance  in  the  open  field  of  de- 
bate. No  belief  has  the  right  to  draw  the  sword — no  dogma 
the  right  to  resort  to  force.  The  moment  a  church  asks  for 
the  help  of  the  State,  it  confesses  its  weakness,  it  confesses 
its  inability  to  answer  the  arguments  against  it. 

I  believe  in  the  absolute  equality  before  the  law,  of  all 
religions  and  of  all  metaphysical  theories  ;  and  I  would  no 
more  control  those  things  by  law  than  I  would  endeavor  to 
control  the  arts  and  the  sciences  by  legislation.  Man  ad- 
mires the  beautiful,  and  what  is  beautiful  to  one  may  not 
be  to  another,  and  this  inequality  or  this  difference  cannot 
be  regulated  by  law. 

The  same  is  true  of  what  is  called  religious  belief,  I  am 
willing  to  give  all  others  every  right  that  I  claim  for  my- 
self, and  if  they  are  not  willing  to  give  me  the  rights  they 
claim  for  themselves,  they  are  not  civilized. 

No  man  acknowledges  the  truth  of  my  opinions  because 
he  votes  the  same  ticket  that  I  do,  and  I  certainly  do  not 
acknowledge  the  correctness  of  the  opinions  of  others 
because  I  vote  the  Republican  ticket.  We  are  Republi- 
cans together.  Upon  certain  political  questions  we  agree  ; 
upon  other  questions  we  disagree — and  that  is  all.  Only 
religious  people,  who  have  made  up  their  minds  to  vote 
the  Democratic  ticket,  will  raise  an  objection  of  this  kind, 


INTERVIEWS.  357 

and  they  will  raise  the  objection  simply  as  a  pretence, 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  muddying  the  water  while  they 
escape. 

Of  course  there  may  be  some  exceptions.  There  are  a 
great  many  insane  people  out  of  asylums.  If  the  Republi- 
can party  does  not  stand  for  absolute  intellectual  liberty, 
it  had  better  disband.  And  why  should  we  take  so  much 
pains  to  free  the  body,  and  then  enslave  the  mind  ?  I 
believe  in  giving  liberty  to  both.  Give  every  man  the 
right  to  labor,  and  give  him  the  right  to  reap  the  harvest 
of  his  toil.  Give  every  man  the  right  to  think,  and  to  reap 
the  harvest  of  his  brain — that  is  to  say,  give  him  the  right 

to  express  his  thoughts, — Neiu  York  Press,  July  8,  1888. 

JAMES  G.  BLAINE  AND  POLITICS. 

Question.  I  see  that  there  has  lately  been  published  a 
long  account  of  the  relations  between  Mr,  Blaine  and  your- 
self, and  the  reason  given  for  your  failure  to  support  him 
for  the  nomination  in  1884  and  1888  ? 

Answer,  Every  little  while  some  donkey  writes  a  long 
article  pretending  to  tell  all  that  happened  between  Mr. 
Blaine  and  myself.  I  have  never  seen  any  article  on  the 
subject  that  contained  any  truth.  They  are  always  the 
invention  of  the  writer  or  of  somebody  who  told  him.  The 
last  account  is  more  than  usually  idiotic.  An  unpleasant 
word  has  never  passed  between  Mr.  Blaine  and  myself.  We 
have  never  had  any  falling  out.  I  never  asked  Mr.  Blaine's 
influence  for  myself.  I  never  asked  President  Hayes  or 
Garfield  or  Arthur  for  any  position  whatever,  and  I  have 
never  asked  Mr,  Cleveland  for  any  appointment  under  the 
civil  service. 

With  regard  to  the  German  Mission,  about  which  so  much 
has  been  said,  all  that  I  ever  did  in  regard  to  that  was  to 
call  on  Secretary  Evarts  and  inform  him  that  there  was  no 
place  in  the  gift  of  the   administration  that  I  would  accept. 


358  INTERVIEWS. 

I  could  not  afford  to  throw  away  a  good  many  thousand 
dollars  a  year  for  the  sake  of  an  office.  So  I  say  again  that 
I  never  asked,  or  dreamed  of  asking,  any  such  favor  of  Mr. 
Blaine.  The  favors  have  been  exactly  the  other  way — from 
me,  and  not  from  him.  So  there  is  not  the  slightest  truth 
in  the  charge  that  there  w^as  some  difference  between  our 
families. 

I  have  great  respect  for  Mrs.  Blaine,  have  always  con- 
sidered her  an  extremely  good  and  sensible  woman  ;  our 
relations  have  been  of  the  friendliest  character,  and 
such  relations  have  always  existed  between  all  the  members 
of  both  families,  so  far  as  I  know.  Nothing  could  be  more 
absurd  than  the  charge  that  there  was  some  feeling  grow- 
ing out  of  our  social  relations.  We  do  not  depend  upon 
others  to  help  us  socially ;  we  need  no  help,  and  if  we  did 
we  would  not  accept  it.  The  whole  story  about  there  hav- 
ing been  any  lack  of  politeness  or  kindness  is  without  the 
slightest  foundation. 

In  1884  I  did  not  think  that  Mr.  Blaine  could  be  elected. 
I  thought  the  same  at  the  Chicago  convention  this  year.  I 
know  that  he  has  a  great  number  of  ardent  admirers  and  of 
exceedingly  self-denying  and  unselfish  friends.  I  believe  that 
he  has  more  friends  than  any  other  man  in  the  Republican 
party ;  but  he  also  has  very  bitter  enemies — enemies  with 
influence.  Taking  this  into  consideration,  and  believing 
that  the  success  of  the  party  was  more  important  than  the 
success  of  any  individual,  I  was  in  favor  of  nominating 
some  man  who  would  poll  the  entire  Republican  vote.  This 
feeling  did  not  grow  out  of  an}^  hostility  to  any  man,  but 
simply  out  of  a  desire  for  Republican  success.  In  other 
words,  I  endeavored  to  take  an  unprejudiced  view  of  the 
situation.  Under  no  circumstances  would  I  underrate  the 
ability  and  influence  of  Mr.  Blaine,  nor  would  I  endeavor 
to  depreciate  the  services  he  has  rendered  to  the  Republican 
party  and  to  the  country.     But  by  this  time  it  ought  to  be 


INTERVIEWS.  359 

understood  that  I  belong  to  no  man,  that  I  am  the  pro- 
prietor of  myself. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  people  that  I  have  no  use  for — 
leaders  and  followers.  The  leader  should  be  principle ;  the 
leader  should  be  a  great  object  to  be  accomplished.  -The 
follower  should  be  the  man  dedicated  to  the  accomplishment 
of  a  noble  end.  He  who  simply  follows  persons  gains  no 
honor  and  is  incapable  of  giving  honor  even  to  the  one  he 
follows.  There  are  certain  things  to  be  accomplished  and 
these  things  are  the  leaders.  We  want  in  this  country  an 
American  system;  we  wish  to  carry  into  operation,  into 
practical  effect,  ideas,  policies,  theories  in  harmony  with  our 
surroundings. 

This  is  a  great  country  filled  with  intelligent,  industrious, 
restless,  ambitious  people.  Millions  came  here  because 
they  were  dissatisfied  with  the  laws,  the  institutions,  the 
tyrannies,  the  absurdities,  the  poverty,  the  wretchedness 
and  the  infamous  spirit  of  caste  found  in  the  Old  World. 
Millions  of  these  people  are  thinking  for  themselves,  and 
only  the  people  who  can  teach,  who  can  give  new  facts,  who 
can  illuminate,  should  be  regarded  as  political  benefactors. 
This  country  is,  in  my  judgment,  in  all  that  constitutes 
true  greatness,  the  nearest  civilized  of  any  country.  Only 
yesterday  the  German  Empire  robbed  a  woman  of  her 
child;  this  was  done  as  a  political  necessity.  Nothing  is 
taken  into  consideration  except  some  move  on  the  political 
chess-board.  The  feelings  of  a  mother  are  utterly  disre- 
garded ;  they  are  left  out  of  the  question ;  they  are  not  even 
passed  upon.  They  are  naturally  ignored,  because  in  these 
governments  only  the  unnatural  is  natural. 

In  our  political  life  we  have  substantially  outgrown  the 
duel.  There  are  some  small,  insignificant  people  who  still 
think  it  important  to  defend  a  worthless  reputation  on  the 
field  of  "honor,"  but  for  respectable  members  of  the  Senate, 
of  the  House,  of  the  Cabinet,  to  settle  a  political  argument 


360  INTERVIEWS. 

with  pistols  would  render  them  utterly  contemptible  in  this 
country;  that  is  to  say,  the  opinion  that  governs,  that 
dominates  in  this  country,  holds  the  duel  in  abhorrence  and 
in  contempt.  What  could  be  more  idiotic,  absurd,  childish, 
than  the  duel  between  Boulanger  and  Floquet  ?  What  was 
settled?  It  needed  no  duel  to  convince  the  world  that 
Floquet  is  a  man  of  courage.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Boulanger.  He  has  faced  death  upon  many  fields.  Why, 
then,resort  to  the  duel  ?  If  Boulanger's  wound  proves  fatal, 
that  certainly  does  not  tend  to  prove  that  Floquet  told  the 
truth,  and  if  Boulanger  recovers,  it  does  not  tend  to  prove 
that  he  did  not  tell  the  truth. 

Nothing  is  settled.  Two  men  controlled  by  vanity,  that 
individual  vanity  born  of  national  vanity,  try  to  kill  each 
other ;  the  public  ready  to  reward  the  victor ;  the  cause  of 
the  quarrel  utterly  ignored;  the  hands  of  the  public  ready 
to  applaud  the  successful  swordsman — and  yet  France  is 
called  a  civilized  nation.  No  matter  how  serious  the  polit- 
ical situation  may  be,  no  matter  if  everything  depends  upon 
one  man,  that  man  is  at  the  mercy  of  anyone  in  opposition 
who  may  see  fit  to  challenge  him.  The  greatest  general 
at  the  head  of  their  armies  may  be  forced  to  fight  a  duel 
with  a  nobody.  Such  ideas,  such  a  system,  keeps  a  nation 
in  peril  and  makes  every  cause,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent, 
depend  upon  the  sword  or  the  bullet  of  a  criminal. — The  Press ^ 

New  York,  July  16,  1888. 

THE  MILLS  BILL. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  significance  of  the 
vote  on  the  Mills  Bill  recently  passed  in  the  House  ?  In 
this  I  find  there  were  one  hundred  and  sixty-two  for  it, 
and  one  hundred  and  forty -nine  against  it ;  of  these,  two 
Republicans  voted  for,  and  five  Democrats  against. 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  it  somewhat  doubtful 
whether  the  biH  could  have  been  passed  if  Mr.  Randall  had 


-    INTERVIEWS.  361 

been  well.  His  sickness  had  much  to  do  with  this  vote. 
Had  he  been  present  to  have  taken  care  of  his  side,  to  have 
kept  his  forces  in  hand,  he,  in  my  judgment,  taking  into 
consideration  his  wonderful  knowledge  of  parliamentary- 
tactics,  would  have  defeated  this  bill. 

It  is  somewhat  hard  to  get  the  average  Democrat,  in  the 
absence  of  his  leader,  to  throw  away  the  prospect  of  patron- 
age. Most  members  of  Congress  have  to  pay  tolerably 
strict  attention  to  their  political  fences.  The  President,  al- 
though clinging  with  great  tenacity  to  the  phrase  "  civil 
service,"  has  in  all  probabilit}^  pulled  every  string  he  could 
reach  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  the  Democratic  mem- 
bers not  only  to  stand  in  line,  but  to  answer  promptly  to 
their  names.  Every  Democrat  who  has  shown  independ- 
ence has  been  stepped  on  just  to  the  extent  he  could  be 
reached ;  but  many  members,  had  the  leader  been  on  the 
floor — and  a  leader  like  Randall — would  have  followed 
him. 

There  are  very  few  congressional  districts  in  the  United 
States  not  intensely  Democratic  where  the  people  want 
nothing  protected.  There  are  a  few  disticts  where  nothing 
grows  except  ancient  politics,  where  they  cultivate  only 
the  memory  of  what  never  ought  to  have  been,  where  the 
subject  of  protection  has  not  yet  reached. 

The  impudence  requisite  to  pass  the  Mills  Bill  is  some- 
thing phenomenal.  Think  of  the  Representatives  from 
Louisiana  saying  to  the  ranchmen  of  the  West  and  to  the 
farmers  of  Ohio  that  wool  must  be  on  the  free  list,  but  that 
for  the  sake  of  preserving  the  sugar  interest  of  Louisiana 
and  a  little  portion  of  Texas,  all  the  rest  of  the  United 
States  must  pay  tribute. 

Everybody  admits  that  Louisiana  is  not  very  well 
adapted  by  nature  for  raising  sugar,  for  the  reason  that  the 
cane  has  to  be  planted  every  year,  and  every  third  year 
the  frost  puts  in  an  appearance  just  a   little  before  the 


362  INTERVIEWS. 

sugar.  Now,  while  I  think  personally  that  the  tariff  on 
sugar  has  stimulated  the  inventive  genius  of  the  country  to 
find  other  ways  of  producing  that  which  is  universally- 
needed  ;  and  while  I  believe  that  it  will  not  be  long  until 
we  shall  produce  every  pound  of  sugar  that  we  consume, 
and  produce  it  cheaper  than  we  buy  it  now,  I  am  satisfied 
that  in  time  and  at  no  distant  daj^  sugar  will  be  made  in 
this  country  extremely  cheap,  not  only  from  beets,  but  from 
sorghum  and  corn,  and  it  may  be  from  other  prod- 
ucts. At  the  same  time  this  is  no  excuse  for  Louisiana, 
neither  is  it  any  excuse  for  South  Carolina  asking  for  a 
tariff  on  rice,  and  at  the  same  time  wishing  to  leave  some 
other  industry  in  the  United  States,  in  which  many  more 
millions  have  been  invested,  absolutely  without  protec- 
tion. 

Understand,  I  am  not  opposed  to  a  reasonable  tariff  on 
rice,  provided  it  is  shown  that  we  can  raise  rice  in  this 
country  cheaply  and  at  a  profit  to  such  an  extent  as  finally 
to  become  substantially  independent  of  the  rest  of  the 
world.  What  I  object  to  is  the  impudence  of  the  gentle- 
man who  is  raising  the  rice  objecting  to  the  protection  of 
some  other  industry  of  far  greater  importance  than  his. 

After  all,  the  whole  thing  must  be  a  compromise.  We 
must  act  together  for  the  common  good.  If  we  wish  to 
make  something  at  the  expense  of  another  State  we  must 
allow  that  State  to  make  something  at  our  expense,  or  at 
least  we  must  be  able  to  show  that  while  it  is  for  our  bene- 
fit it  is  also  for  the  benefit  of  the  country  at  large.  Every- 
body is  entitled  to  have  his  own  way  up  to  the  point  that 
his  way  interferes  with  somebody  eLse,  States  are  like 
individuals — their  rights  are  relative — they  are  subordin- 
ated to  the  good  of  the  whole  country. 

For  many  5^ears  it  has  been  the  American  policy  to  do 
all  that  reasonably  could  be  done  to  foster  American  in- 
dustry, to  give  scope  to  American  ingenuity  and  a  field  for 


INTERVIEWS.  363 

American   enterprise — in   other  words,   a   future    for   the 
United  States. 

The  Southern  States  were  always  in  favor  of  something 
like  free  trade.  They  wanted  to  raise  cotton  for  Great 
Britain — raw  material  for  other  countries.  At  that  time 
their  labor  was  slave  labor,  and  they  could  not  hope  ever 
to  have  skilled  labor,  because  skilled  labor  cannot  be 
enslaved.  The  Southern  people  knew  at  that  time  that  if 
a  man  was  taught  enough  of  mathematics  to  understand 
machinery,  to  run  locomotives,  to  weave  cloth;  if  he  was 
taught  enough  of  chemistry  even  to  color  calico,  it  vvould 
be  impossible  to  keep  him  a  slave.  Education  always  was 
and  alwa3^s  will  be  an  abolitionist.  The  South  advocated 
a  system  of  harmony  with  vSlavery,  in  harmony  with  ig- 
norance— that  is  to  say,  a  system  of  free  trade,  under  which 
it  might  raise  raw  material.  It  could  not  hope  to  manu- 
facture, because  bj^  making  its  labor  intelligent  enough  to 
manufacture  it  would  lose  it. 

In  the  North,  men  are  working  for  themselves,  and  as  I 
have  often  said,  they  were  getting  their  hands  and  heads 
in  partnership.  Every  little  stream  that  went  singing  to 
the  sea  was  made  to  turn  a  thousand  wheels  ;  the  water 
became  a  spinner  and  a  weaver ;  the  water  became  a  black- 
smith and  ran  a  trip  hammer;  the  water  was  doing  the 
work  of  millions  of  men.  In  other  words,  the  free  people 
of  the  North  were  doing  what  free  people  have  always 
done,  going  into  partnership  with  the  forces  of  nature. 
Free  people  want  good  tools,  shapely,  well  made — tools 
with  which  the  most  work  can  be  done  with  the  least 
strain. 

Suppose  the  South  had  been  in  favor  of  protection  ; 
suppose  that  all  over  the  Southern  country  there  had  been 
workshops,  factories,  machines  of  every  kind  ;  suppose 
that  her  people  had  been  as  ingenious  as  the  people  of  the 
North  ;  suppose  that  her  hands  had  been  as  deft  as  those 


364  INTERVIEWS. 

that  had  been  accustomed  to  skilled  labor  ;  then  one  of  two 
things  would  have  happened ;  either  the  South  would  have 
been  too  intelligent  to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  or,  hav- 
ing withdrawn,  it  would  have  had  the  power  to  maintain  its 
position.  My  opinion  is  that  it  would  have  been  too  in- 
telligent to  withdraw. 

When  the  South  seceded  it  had  no  factories.  The  people 
of  the  South  had  ability,  but  it  was  not  trained  in  the 
direction  then  necessary.  They  could  not  arm  and  equip 
their  men ;  they  could  not  make  their  clothes  ;  they  could 
not  provide  them  with  guns,  with  cannon,  with  ammuni- 
tion, and  with  the  countless  implements  of  destruction. 
They  had  not  the  ingenuity ;  they  had  not  the  means ; 
they  could  not  make  cars  to  carry  their  troops,  or  loco- 
motives to  draw  them ;  they  had  not  in  their  armies  the 
men  to  build  bridges  or  to  supply  the  needed  transporta- 
tion. They  had  nothing  but  cotton — that  is  to  say,  raw 
material.  So  that  you  might  say  that  the  Rebellion  has 
settled  the  question  as  to  whether  a  country  is  better  oS 
and  more  prosperous,  and  more  powerful,  and  more  ready 
for  war,  that  is  filled  with  industries,  or  one  that  depends 
simply  upon  the  production  of  raw  material. 

There  is  another  thing  in  this  connection  that  should 
never  be  forgotten — at  least,  not  until  after  the  election  in 
November,  and  then  if  forgotten,  should  be  remembered  at 
every  subsequent  election — and  that  is,  that  the  Southern 
Confederacy  had  in  its  Constitution  the  doctrine  of  free 
trade.  Among  other  things  it  was  fighting  for  free  trade. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  John  C.  Calhoun  was  fighting  for  free 
trade ;  the  nullification  business  was  in  the  interest  of 
free  trade. 

The  Southern  people  are  endeavoring  simply  to  accom- 
plish, with  the  aid  of  New  York,  what  they  failed  to  accom- 
plish on  the  field.  The  South  is  as  "solid"  to-day  as  in  1863. 
It  is  now  for  free  trade,  and  it  purposes  to  carry  the  day  by 


INTERVIEWS.  365 

the  aid  of  one  or  two  Northern  States.  History  is  repeat- 
ing itself.  It  was  the  same  for  many  years,  up  to  the 
election  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Understand  me,  I  do  not  blame  the  South  for  acting  in 
accordance  with  its  convictions,  but  the  North  ought  not 
to  be  misled.  The  North  ought  to  understand  what  the 
issue  is.  The  South  has  a  different  idea  of  government — it 
is  afraid  of  what  it  calls  "  centralization  " — it  is  extremely 
sensitive  about  what  are  called  "State  Rights"  or  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  State.  But  the  North  believes  in  a  Union 
that  is  united.  The  North  does  not  expect  to  have  any  in- 
terest antagonistic  to  the  Union,  The  North  has  no  mental 
reservation.  The  North  believes  in  the  Government  and  in 
the  Federal  system,  and  the  North  believes  that  when  a  State 
is  admitted  into  the  Union  it  becomes  a  part — an  integral 
part — of  the  Nation ;  that  there  was  a  welding,  that  the  State, 
so  far  as  sovereignty  is  concerned,  is  lost  in  the  Union, 
and  that  the  people  of  that  State  become  citizens  of  the 
whole  country. 

QuesHofi.  I  see  that  by  the  vote  two  of  the  five  Democrats 
who  voted  for  protection,  and  one  of  the  two  Republicans 
who  voted  for  free  trade,  were  New  Yorkers.  What  do  you 
think  is  the  significance  of  this  fact  in  relation  to  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  New  York  will  join  the  South  in  its 
opposition  to  the  industries  of  the  country  ? 

Answer.  In  the  city  of  New  York  there  are  a  vast  num- 
ber of  men — importers,  dealers  in  foreign  articles,  represen- 
tatives of  foreign  houses,  of  foreign  interests,  of  foreign 
ideas.  Of  course  most  of  these  people  are  in  favor  of  free 
trade.  They  regard  New  York  as  a  good  market ;  beyond 
that  they  have  not  the  slightest  interest  in  the  United  States. 
They  are  in  favor  of  anything  that  will  give  them  a  larger 
profit,  or  that  will  allow  them  to  do  the  same  business  with 
less  capital,  or  that  will  do  them  any  good  without  the 
slightest  regard  as  to  what  the  effect  may  be  on  this  country 


366  INTERVIEWS. 

as  a  nation.  They  come  from  all  countries,  and  they  ex- 
pect to  remain  here  until  their  fortunes  are  made  or  lost, 
and  all  their  ideas  are  moulded  by  their  own  interests. 
Then,  there  ^re  a  great  many  natives  who  are  merchants  in 
New  York  and  who  deal  in  foreign  goods,  and  they  prob- 
ably think — some  of  them — that  it  would  be  to  their  interest 
to  have  free  trade,  and  they  will  probably  vote  according  to 
the  ledger.  With  them  it  is  question  of  bookkeeping. 
Their  greed  is  too  great  to  appreciate  the  fact  that  to  im- 
poverish customers  destroys  trade. 

At  the  same  time,  New  York,  being  one  of  the  greatest 
manufacturing  States  of  the  world,  will  be  for  protection, 
and  the  Democrats  of  New  York  who  voted  for  protection 
did  so,  not  only  because  they  believed  in  it  themselves,  but 
because  their  constituents  believe  in  it,  and  the  Republican 
who  voted  the  other  way  must  have  represented  some  dis- 
trict where  the  foreign  influence  controls. 

The  people  of  this  State  will  protect  their  own  industries. 

Question.  What  will  be  the  fate  of  the  Mills  Bill  in  the 
Senate  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  unless  the  Senate  has  a  bill  pre- 
pared embodying  Republican  ideas,  a  committee  should  be 
appointed,  not  simply  to  examine  the  Mills  Bill,  but  to  get 
the  opinions  and  the  ideas  of  the  most  intelligent  manufac- 
turers and  mechanics  in  this  country.  Let  the  questions  be 
thoroughly  discussed,  and  let  the  information  thus  obtained 
be  given  to  the  people  ;  let  it  be  published  from  day  to  day ; 
let  the  laboring  man  have  his  say,  let  the  manufacturer  give 
his  opinion ;  let  the  representatives  of  the  principal  industries 
be  heard,  so  that  we  may  vote  intelligently,  so  that  the  peo- 
ple may  know  what  they  are  doing. 

A  great  many  industries  have  been  attacked.     Let  them 
defend  themselves.     Public  property  should  not  be  taken 
for  Democratic  use  without  due  process  of  law. 
'  Certainly  it  is  not  the  business  of  a  Republican  Senate  to 


INTERVIEWS.  367 

pull  the  donkey  of  the  Democrats  out  of  the  pit ;  they  dug 
the  pit,  and  we  have  lost  no  donkey. 

I  do  not  think  the  Senate  called  upon  to  fix  up  this  Mills 
Bill,  to  rectify  its  most  glaring  mistakes,  and  then  for  the 
sake  of  saving  a  little,  give  up  a  great  deal.  What  we  have 
got  is  safe  until  the  Democrats  have  the  power  to  pass  a  bill. 
We  can  protect  our  rights  by  not  passing  their  bills.  In 
other  w^ords,  we  do  not  wish  to  practice  any  great  self-denial 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  insuring  Democratic  success.  If 
the  bill  is  sent  back  to  the  House,  no  matter  in  what  form, 
if  it  still  has  the  name  "  Mills  Bill"  I  think  the  Democrats 
will  vote  for  it  simply  to  get  out  of  their  trouble.  They 
will  have  the  President's  message  left. 

But  I  do  hope  that  the  Senate  will  investigate  this  busi- 
ness. It  is  hardly  fair  to  ask  the  Senate  to  take  decided  and 
final  action  upon  this  bill  in  the  last  days  of  the  session. 
There  is  no  time  to  consider  it  unless  it  is  instantly  defeated. 
This  would  probably  be  a  safe  course,  and  yet,  by  accident, 
there  may  be  some  good  things  in  this  bill  that  ought  to  be 
preserved,  and  certainly  the  Democratic  party  ought  to  re- 
gard it  as  a  compliment  to  keep  it  long  enough  to  read  it. 

The  interests  involved  are  great — there  are  the  commer- 
cial and  industrial  interests  of  sixty  millions  of  people. 
These  questions  touch  the  prosperity  of  the  Republic. 
Every  person  under  the  flag  has  a  direct  interest  in  the  solu- 
tion of  these  questions.  The  end  that  is  now  arrived  at,  the 
policy  now  adopted,  may  and  probably  will  last  for  many 
years.  One  can  hardly  overestimate  the  immensity  of  the 
interests  at  stake,  A  man  dealing  with  his  own  affairs 
should  take  time  to  consider ;  he  should  give  himself  the 
benefit  of  his  best  judgment.  When  acting  for  others  he 
should  do  no  less.  The  Senators  represent,  or  should  repre- 
sent, not  only  their  own  views,  not  only  their  own  interests, 
but  above  these  things  they  represent  the  material  interests 
of  their  constituents,  of  their  States,  and  to  this  trust  they 


368  INTERVIEWS. 

must  be  true,  and  in  order  to  be  true,  tbey  must  understand 
the  material  interests  of  their  States,  and  in  order  to  be  faith- 
ful, they  must  understand  how  the  proposed  changes  in  the 
tariff  will  affect  these  interests.  This  cannot  be  done  in  a 
moment. 

In  my  judgment,  the  best  way  is  for  the  Senate,  through 
the  proper  committee,  to  hear  testimony,  to  hear  the  views 
of  intelligent  men,  of  interested  men,  of  prejudiced  men — 
that  is  to  say,  they  should  look  at  the  question  from  all  sides. 

Question.  The  Senate  is  almost  tied ;  do  you  think  that 
any  Republicans  are  likely  to  vote  in  the  interest  of  the 
President's  policy  at  this  session  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  I  cannot  pretend  to  answer  that  ques- 
tion from  any  special  knowledge,  or  on  any  information 
that  others  are  not  in  possession  of.  My  idea  is  simply  this : 
That  a  majority  of  the  Senators  are  opposed  to  the  Presi- 
dent's policy.  A  majority  of  the  Senate  will,  in  my  judg- 
ment, sustain  the  Republican  policy ;  that  is  to  say,  they  will 
stand  by  the  American  system.  A  majority  of  the  Senate, 
I  think,  know  that  it  will  be  impossible  for  us  to  compete  in 
the  markets  of  the  world  with  those  nations  in  which  labor 
is  far  cheaper  than  it  is  in  the  United  States,  and  that  when 
you  make  raw  material  just  the  same,  you  have  not  over- 
come the  difference  in  labor,  and  until  this  is  overcome  we 
cannot  successfully  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  world 
with  those  countries  where  labor  is  cheaper.  And  there  are 
only  two  ways  to  overcome  this  difficulty — either  the  price 
of  labor  must  go  up  in  the  other  countries  or  must  go  down 
in  this.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  majority  of  the  Senate  can 
be  induced  to  vote  for  a  policy  that  will  decrease  the  wages 
of  American  workingmen. 

There  is  this  curious  thing:  The  President  started  out 
blowing  the  trumpet  of  free  trade.  It  gave,  as  the  Demo- 
crats used  to  say,  "no  uncertain  sound."  He  blew  with  all 
his  might.     Messrs.   Morrison,   Carlisle,   Mills  and  many 


INTERVIEWS,  369 

others  joined  the  band.  When  the  Mills  Bill  was  introduced 
it  was  heralded  as  the  legitimate  offspring  of  the  President's 
message.  When  the  Democratic  convention  at  St.  Louis 
met,  the  declaration  was  made  that  the  President's  message, 
the  Mills  Bill,  the  Democratic  platform  of  1884  and  the 
Democratic  platform  of  1888,  were  all  the  same — all  segments 
of  one  circle ;  in  fact,  they  were  like  modern  locomotives — 
*' all  the  parts  interchangeable."  As  soon  as  the  Republi- 
can convention  met,  made  its  platform  and  named  its  can- 
didates, it  is  not  free  trade,  but  freer  trade ;  and  now  Mr. 
Mills,  in  the  last  speech  that  he  was  permitted  to  make  in 
favor  of  his  bill,  endeavored  to  show  that  it  was  a  high  pro- 
tective tariff  measure. 

This  is  what  lawyers  call  *'  a  departure  in  pleading." 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  a  case  that  ought  to  be  beaten  on  de- 
murrer.— New  York  Press,  July  29,  1888. 

SOCIETY  AND  ITS  CRIMINALS.* 

I  suppose  that  society — that  is  to  say,  a  state  or  a  nation 
— has  the  right  of  self-defence.  It  is  impossible  to  main- 
tain society — that  is  to  say,  to  protect  the  rights  of 
individuals  in  life,  in  property,  in  reputation,  and  in  the 
various  pursuits  known  as  trades  and  professions,  without 
in  some  way  taking  care  of  those  who  violate  these  rights. 
The  principal  object  of  all  government  should  be  to  protect 
those  in  the  right  from  those  in  the  wrong.  There  are  a 
vast  number  of  people  who  need  to  be  protected  who  are 
unable,^  by  reason  of  the  defects  in  their  minds  and  by  the 
countless  circumstances  that  enter  into  the  question  of 
making  a  living,  to  protect  themselves.  Among  the  bar- 
barians there  was,  comparatively  speaking,  but  little  differ- 
ence.    A  living  was  made  by  fishing  and  hunting.     These 

*Col.  EoTsert  G.  Ingersoll  was  greatly  interested  in  securing  for  Chiara  Cignarale  a 
commutation  of  the  death  sentence  to  imprisonment  for  life.  In  view  of  the  faet  that 
the  great  Agnostic  has  made  a  close  study  of  capital  punishment,  a  reporter  for  the 
World  called  upon  him  a  dav  or  two  ago  for  an  interview  touching  modern  reformatory 
measures  and  the  punishment  of  criminals.  Speaking  generally  on  the  subject  Colonei 
logarsoll  said : 


370  INTERVIEWS. 

arts  were  simple  and  were  easily  learned.  The  principal 
difference  in  barbarians  consisted  in  physical  strength  and 
courage.  As  a  consequence,  there  were  comparatively  few 
failures.  Most  men  were  on  an  equality.  Now  that  we  are 
somewhat  civilized,  life  has  become  wonderfully  complex. 
There  are  hundreds  of  arts,  trades,  and  professions,  and  in 
every  one  of  these  there  is  great  competition. 

Besides  all  this,  something  is  needed  every  moment. 
Civilized  man  has  less  credit  than  the  barbarian.  There  is 
something  by  which  everything  can  be  paid  for,  including 
the  smallest  services.  Everybody  demands  payment,  and 
he  who  fails  to  pay  is  a  failure.  Owing  to  the  competition, 
owing  to  the  complexity  of  modern  life,  owing  to  the 
thousand  things  that  must  be  known  in  order  to  succeed  in 
any  direction,  on  either  side  of  the  great  highway  that  is 
called  Progress,  are  innumerable  wrecks.  As  a  rule,  failure 
in  some  honest  direction,  or  at  least  in  some  useful  employ- 
ment, is  the  dawn  of  crime.  People  who  are  prosperous, 
people  who  by  reasonable  labor  can  make  a  reasonable 
living,  who,  having  a  little  leisure  can  lay  in  a  little  for  the 
winter  that  comes  to  all,  are  honest. 

As  a  rule,  reasonable  prosperity  is  virtuous,  I  don't  saj'' 
great  prosperity,  because  it  is  very  hard  for  the  average 
man  to  withstand  extremes.  When  people  fail  under  this 
law,  or  rather  this  fact,  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  they 
endeavor  to  do  by  some  illegal  waj^  that  which  they  failed 
to  do  in  accordance  with  law.  Persons  driven  from  the 
highway  take  to  the  fields,  and  endeavor  to  reach  their  end 
or  object  in  some  shorter  way,  by  some  quicker  path,  regard- 
less of  its  being  right  or  wrong. 

I  have  said  this  much  to  show  that  I  regard  criminals  as 
unfortunates.  Most  people  regard  those  who  violate  the 
law  with  hatred.  They  do  not  take  into  consideration  the 
circumstances.  They  do  not  believe  that  man  is  perpetually 
acted  upon.     They  throw  out  of  consideration  the  effect  of 


INTERVIEWS.  371 

poverty,  of  necessity,  and  above  all,  of  opportunity.  For 
these  reasons  they  regard  criminals  with  feelings  of  revenge. 
They  wish  to  see  them  punished.  They  want  them 
imprisoned  or  hanged.  They  do  not  think  the  law  has  been 
vindicated  unless  somebody  has  been  outraged.  I  look  at 
these  things  from  an  entirely  different  point  of  view.  I 
regard  these  people  who  are  in  the  clutches  of  the  law  not 
only  as  unfortunates,  but,  for  the  most  part,  as  victims. 
You  may  call  them  victims  of  nature,  or  of  nations,  or  of 
governments;  it  makes  no  difference,  they  are  victims. 
Under  the  same  circumstances  the  very  persons  who  punish 
them  would  be  punished.  But  whether  the  criminal  is  a 
victim  or  not,  the  honest  man,  the  industrious  man,  has  the 
right  to  defend  the  product  of  his  labor.  He  who  sows  and 
plows  should  be  allowed  to  reap,  and  he  who  endeavors  to 
take  from  him  his  harvest  is  what  we  L-all  a  criminal ;  and 
it  is  the  business  of  society  to  protect  the  honest  from  the 
dishonest. 

Without  taking  into  account  whether  the  man  is  or  is  not 
responsible,  still  society  has  the  right  of  self-defence. 
Whether  that  right  of  self-defence  goes  to  the  extent  of 
taking  life,  depends,  I  imagine,  upon  the  circumstances  in 
which  society  finds  itself  placed.  A  thousand  men  on  a 
ship  form  a  society.  If  a  few  men  should  enter  into  a  plot 
for  the  destruction  of  the  ship,  or  for  turning  it  over  to 
pirates,  or  for  poisoning  and  plundering  the  most  of  the 
passengers — if  the  passengers  found  this  out  certainly  they 
would  have  the  right  of  self-defence.  They  might  not  have 
the  means  to  confine  the  conspirators  with  safety.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  might  be  perfectly  proper  for  them  to 
destroy  their  lives  and  to  throw  their  worthless  bodies  into 
the  sea.  But  what  society  has  the  right  to  do  depends 
upon  the  circumstances.  Now,  in  my  judgment,  society  has 
the  right  to  do  two  things — to  protect  itself  and  to  do  what 
it  can  to  reform  the  criminal.     Society  has  no  right  to  take 


372  INTERVIEWS. 

revenge ;  no  right  to  torture  a  convict ;  no  right  to  do 
wrong  because  some  individual  has  done  wrong.  I  am 
opposed  to  all  corporal  punishment  in  penitentiaries.  I  am 
opposed  to  anything  that  degrades  a  criminal  or  leaves  upon 
him  an  unnecessary  stain,  or  puts  upon  him  any  stain  that 
he  did  not  put  upon  himself. 

Most  people  defend  capital  punishment  on  the  ground 
that  the  man  ought  to  be  killed  because  he  has  killed 
another.  The  only  real  ground  for  killing  him,  even  if  that 
be  good,  is  not  that  he  has  killed,  but  that  he  may  kill. 
What  he  has  done  simply  gives  evidence  of  what  he  may  do, 
and  to  prevent  what  he  may  do,  instead  of  to  revenge  what 
he  has  done,  should  be  the  reason  given. 

Now,  there  is  another  view.  To  what  extent  does  it 
harden  the  community  for  the  Government  to  take  life  ? 
Don't  people  reason  in  this  way :  that  man  ought  to  be  killed ; 
the  Government,  under  the  same  circumstances,  would  kill 
him,  therefore  I  will  kill  him  ?  Does  not  the  Government 
feed  the  mob  spirit — the  lynch  spirit  ?  Does  not  the  mob 
follow  the  example  set  by  the  Government  ?  The  Govern- 
ment certainly  cannot  say  that  it  hangs  a  man  for  the 
purpose  of  reforming  him.  Its  feelings  toward  that  man 
are  only  feelings  of  revenge  and  hatred.  These  are  the 
same  feelings  that  animate  the  lowest  and  basest  mob. 

Let  me  give  you  an  example.  In  the  city  of  Bloomington, 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  a  man  confined  in  the  jail,  in  his 
efforts  to  escape,  shot  and,  I  believe,  killed  the  jailer.  He 
was  pursued,  recaptured,  brought  back  and  hanged  by  a 
mob.  The  man  who  put  the  rope  around  his  neck  was  then 
under  indictment  for  an  assault  to  kill  and  was  out  on  bail, 
and  after  the  poor  wretch  was  hanged  another  man  climbed 
the  tree  and,  in  a  kind  of  derision,  put  a  piece  of  cigar 
between  the  lips  of  the  dead  man.  The  man  who  did  this 
had  also  been  indicted  for  a  penitentiary  offence  and  was 
then  out  on  bail 


INTERVIEWS.  373 

I  mention  this  simply  to  show  the  kind  of  people  you  find 
in  mobs.  Now,  if  the  Government  had  a  greater  and  nobler 
thought ;  if  the  Government  said :  "  We  will  reform ;  we  will 
not  destro}^ ;  but  if  the  man  is  beyond  reformation  we  will 
simply  put  him  where  he  can  do  no  more  harm,"  then,  in  my 
judgment,  the  effect  would  be  far  better.  My  own  opinion 
is,  that  the  effect  of  an  execution  is  bad  upon  the  com- 
munity— degrading  and  debasing.  The  effect  is  to  cheapen 
human  life ;  and,  although  a  man  is  hanged  because  he  has 
taken  human  life,  the  very  fact  that  his  life  is  taken  by  the 
Government  tends  to  do  away  with  the  idea  that  human  life 
is  sacred. 

Let  me  give  you  an  illustration.  A  man  in  the  city  of 
Washington  went  to  Alexandria,  Va.,  for  the  purpose  of 
seeing  a  man  hanged  who  had  murdered  an  old  man  and  a 
woman  for  the  purpose  of  getting  their  money.  On  his 
return  from  that  execution  he  came  through  what  is  called 
the  Smithsonian  grounds.  This  was  on  the  same  day,  late 
in  the  evening.  There  he  met  a  peddler,  whom  he  proceeded 
to  murder  for  his  money.  He  was  arrested  in  a  few  hours, 
in  a  little  w^hile  was  tried  and  convicted,  and  in  a  little 
while  was  hanged.  And  another  man,  present  at  this 
second  execution,  went  home  on  that  same  day,  and,  in 
passing  by  a  butcher-shop  near  his  house,  went  in,  took 
from  the  shop  a  cleaver,  went  into  his  house  and  chopped 
his  wife's  head  off. 

This,  I  say,  throws  a  little  light  upon  the  effect  of  public 
executions.  In  the  Cignarale  case,  of  course  the  sentence 
should  have  been  commuted.  I  think,  however,  that  she 
ought  not  to  be  imprisoned  for  life.  From  what  I  read  of 
the  testimony  I  think  she  should  have  been  pardoned. 

It  is  hard,  I  suppose,  for  a  man  fully  to  understand  and 
enter  into  the  feelings  of  a  wife  who  has  been  trampled 
upon,  abused,  bruised,  and  blackened  by  the  man  she 
loved — by   the  man  who  made  to  her  the  vows  of  eter- 


374  INTERVIEWS. 

nal  affection.  The  woman,  as  a  rule,  is  so  weak,  so  help- 
less. Of  course,  it  does  not  all  happen  in  a  moment.  It 
comes  on  as  the  night  comes.  She  notices  that  he  does  not 
act  quite  as  affectionately  as  he  formerly  did.  Day  after 
day,  month  after  month,  she  feels  that  she  is  entering  a 
twilight.  But  she  hopes  that  she  is  mistaken,  and  that  the 
light  will  come  again.  The  gloom  deepens,  and  at  last  she 
is  in  midnight — a  midnight  without  a  star.  And  this  man, 
whom  she  once  worshiped,  is  now  her  enemy — one  who  de- 
lights to  trample  upon  every  sentiment  she  has — who  delights 
in  humiliating  her,  and  who  is  guilty  of  a  thousand  nameless 
tyrannies.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  hardly  right 
to  hold  that  woman  accountable  for  what  she  does.  It  has 
always  seemed  to  me  strange  that  a  woman  so  circum- 
stanced— in  such  fear  that  she  dare  not  even  tell  her 
trouble — in  such  fear  that  she  dare  not  even  run  away — 
dare  not  tell  a  father  or  a  mother,  for  fear  that  she  will  be 
killed — I  say,  that  in  view  of  all  this,  it  has  always  seemed 
strange  to  me  that  so  few  husbands  have  been  poisoned. 

The  probability  is  that  society  raises  its  own  criminals. 
It  plows  the  land,  sows  the  seed,  and  harvests  the  crop.  I 
believe  that  the  shadow  of  the  gibbet  will  not  always  fall 
upon  the  earth.  I  believe  the  time  will  come  when  we 
shall  know  too  much  to  raise  criminals — know  too  much  to 
crowd  those  that  labor  into  the  dens  and  dungeons  that  we 
call  tenements,  while  the  idle  live  in  palaces.  The  time 
will  come  when  men  will  know  that  real  progress  means 
the  enfranchisement  of  the  whole  human  race,  and  that  our 
interests  are  so  united,  so  interwoven,  that  the  few  cannot 
be  happy  while  the  many  suffer ;  so  that  the  manj^  cannot 
be  happ}^  while  the  few  suffer  ;  so  that  none  can  be  happy 
while  one  .suffers.  In  other  words,  it  will  be  found  that 
the  human  race  is  interested  in  each  individual.  When 
that  time  comes  we  will  stop  producing  criminals  ;  we  will 
stop  producing  failures ;  we  will  not  leave  the  next  gener- 


INTERVIEWS.  375 

ation  to  chance  ;  we  will  not  regard  the  gutter  as  a  proper 
nursery  for  posterity. 

People  imagine  that  if  the  thieves  are  sent  to  the  peniten- 
tiary, that  is  the  last  of  the  thieves  ;  that  if  those  who  kill 
others  are  hanged,  society  is  on  a  safe  and  enduring  basis. 
But  the  trouble  is  here  :  A  man  comes  to  your  front  door 
and  you  drive  him  away.  You  have  an  idea  that  that  man's 
case  is  settled.  You  are  mistaken.  He  goes  to  the  back 
door.  He  is  again  driven  away.  But  the  case  is  not  yet 
settled.  The  next  thing  you  know  he  enters  at  night.  He 
is  a  burglar.  He  is  caught ;  he  is  convicted  ;  he  is  sent  to 
the  penitentiary,  and  you  imagine  that  the  case  is  settled. 
But  it  is  not.  You  must  remember  that  you  have  to  keep 
all  the  agencies  alive  for  the  purpose  of  taking  care  of 
these  people.  You  have  to  build  and  maintain  your 
penitentiaries,  your  courts  of  justice;  you  have  to  pay 
your  judges,  your  district  attorneys,  your  juries,  j^our 
witnessCvS,  your  detectives,  your  police — all  these  people 
must  be  paid.  So  that,  after  all,  it  is  a  very  expensive 
way  of  settling  this  question.  You  could  have  done  it  far 
more  cheaply  had  you  found  this  burglar  when  he  was  a 
child ;  had  you  taken  his  father  and  mother  from  the  tene- 
ment house,  or  had  you  compelled  the  owners  to  keep  the 
tenement  clean ;  or  if  you  had  widened  the  streets,  if  you 
had  planted  a  few  trees,  if  you  had  had  plenty  of  baths, 
if  you  had  had  a  school  in  the  neighborhood.  If  you  had 
taken  some  interest  in  this  family — some  interest  in  this 
child — instead  of  breaking  into  houses,  he  might  have  been 
a  builder  of  houses. 

There  is,  and  it  cannot  be  said  too  often,  no  reforming 
influence  in  punishment ;  no  reforming  power  in  revenge. 
Only  the  best  of  men  should  be  in  charge  of  penitentiaries  ; 
only  the  noblest  minds  and  the  tenderest  hearts  should 
have  the  care  of  criminals.  Criminals  should  see  from  the 
first  moment  that  they  enter  a  penitentiary  that  it  is  filled 


376  INTERVIEWS. 

with  the  air  of  kindness,  full  of  the  light  of  hope.  The  object 
should  be  to  convince  every  criminal  that  he  has  made  a 
mistake  ;  that  he  has  taken  the  wrong  way  ;  that  the  right 
way  is  the  easy  way,  and  that  the  path  of  crime  never  did 
and  never  can  lead  to  happiness  ;  that  that  idea  is  a  mis- 
take, and  that  the  Government  wishes  to  convince  him  that 
he  has  made  a  mistake ;  wishes  to  open  his  intellectual 
eyes ;  wishes  so  to  educate  him,  so  to  elevate  him,  that  he 
will  look  back  upon  what  he  has  done,  only  with  horror. 
This  is  reformation.  Punishment  is  not.  When  the  con- 
vict is  taken  to  Sing  Sing  or  to  Auburn,  and  when  a  striped 
suit  of  clothes  is  put  upon  him — that  is  to  say,  when  he  is 
made  to  feel  the  degradation  of  his  position — no  step  has 
been  taken  toward  reformation.  You  have  simply  filled 
his  heart  with  hatred.  Then,  when  he  has  been  abused 
for  several  years,  treated  like  a  wild  beast,  and  finally 
turned  out  again  in  the  community,  he  has  no  thought,  in 
a  majority  of  cases,  except  to  "  get  even  "  with  those  who 
have  persecuted  him.     He  feels  that  it  is  a  persecution. 

Question.  Do   you   think    that  men   are   naturally  crim- 
inals and  naturally  virtuous? 

Answer,  I  think  that  man  does  all  that  he  does  naturally 
— that  is  to  say,  a  certain  man  does  a  certain  act  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  and  he  does  this  naturally.  For  in- 
stance, a  man  sees  a  five  dollar  bill,  and  he  knows  that  he 
can  take  it  without  being  seen.  Five  dollars  is  no  tempta- 
tion to  him.  Under  the  circumstances  it  is  not  natural  that 
he  should  take  it.  The  same  man  sees  five  million  dollars, 
and  feels  that  he  can  get  possession  of  it  without  detection. 
If  he  takes  it,  then  under  the  circumstances,  that  was 
natural  to  him.  And  yet  I  believe  there  are  men  above 
all  price,  and  that  no  amount  of  temptation  or  glory,  or 
fame  could  mislead  them.  Still,  whatever  man  does,  is  or 
was  natural  to  him. 
.    Another  view  of  the  subject  is  this :  I  have  read  that  out 


INTERVIEWS.  377 

of  fifty  criminals  who  had  been  executed  it  was  found,  I 
believe,  in  nearly  all  the  cases,  that  the  shape  of  the  skull 
was  abnormal.  Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  I  don't  know ; 
but  that  some  men  have  a  tendency  toward  what  we  call 
crime,  I  believe.  Where  this  has  been  ascertained,  then, 
it  seems  to  me,  such  men  should  be  placed  where  they 
cannot  multiply  their  kind.  Women  who  have  a  crim- 
inal tendency  should  be  placed  where  they  cannot  in- 
crease their  kind.  For  hardened  criminals — that  is 
to  sa}'-,  for  the  people  who  make  crime  a  business — it 
would  probably  be  better  to  separate  the  sexes  ;  to  send 
the  men  to  one  island,  the  women  to  another.  Let  them 
be  kept  apart,  to  the  end  that  people  with  criminal  tend- 
encies may  fade  from  the  earth.  This  is  not  prompted 
by  revenge.  This  would  not  be  done  for  the  purpose  of 
punishing  these  people,  but  for  the  protection  of  society — 
for  the  peace  and  happiness  of  the  future. 

My  own  belief  is  that  the  system  in  vogue  now  in  regard 
to  the  treatment  of  criminals  in  many  States  produces  more 
crime  than  it  prevents.  Take,  for  instance,  the  Southern 
States.  There  is  hardly  a  chapter  in  the  history  of  the 
world  the  reading  of  which  could  produce  greater  indigna- 
tion than  the  history  of  the  convict  system  in  many  of  the 
Southern  States.  These  convicts  are  hired  out  for  the  pur- 
pose of  building  railways,  or  plowing  fields,  or  digging 
coal,  and  in  some  instances  the  death-rate  has  been  over 
twelve  per  cent,  a  month.  The  evidence  shows  that  no  re- 
spect was  paid  to  the  sexes — men  and  women  were  chained 
together  indiscriminately.  The  evidence  also  shows  that 
for  the  slightest  offences  they  were  shot  down  like  beasts. 
They  were  pursued  by  hounds,  and  their  flesh  was  torn 
from  their  bones. 

So  in  some  of  the  Northern  prisons  they  have  what  they 
call  the  weighing  machine — an  infamous  thing,  and  he  who 
uses  it  commits  as  great  a  crime  as  the  convict  he  punishes 


378  INTERVIEWS. 

could  have  committed.  All  these  things  are  degrading,  de- 
basing, and  demoralizing.  There  is  no  need  of  any  such 
punishment  in  any  penitentiary.  Let  the  punishment  be 
of  such  kind  that  the  convict  is  responsible  himself.  For 
instance,  if  the  convict  refuses  to  obey  a  reasonable  rule  he 
can  be  put  into  a  cell.  He  can  be  fed  when  he  obeys  the 
rule. 

If  he  goes  hungry  it  is  his  own  fault.  It  depends 
upon  himself  to  say  when  he  shall  eat.  Or  he  may  be 
placed  in  such  a  position  that  if  he  does  not  work — if  he 
does  not  pump — the  water  will  rise  and  drown  him.  If  the 
water  does  rise  it  is  his  fault.  Nobody  pours  it  upon  him. 
He  takes  his  choice. 

These  are  suggested  as  desperate  cases,  but  I  can  imagine 
no  case  where  what  is  called  corporal  punishment  should  be 
inflicted,  and  the  reason  I  am  against  it  is  this:  I  am 
opposed  to  any  punishment  that  cannot  be  inflicted  by  a 
gentleman.  I  am  opposed  to  any  punishment  the  infliction 
of  which  tends  to  harden  and  debase  the  man  who  inflicts 
it.  I  am  for  no  laws  that  have  to  be  carried  out  by  human 
curs. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  whipping-post.  Nothing  can  be 
more  degrading.  The  man  who  applies  the  lash  is  neces- 
sarily a  cruel  and  vulgar  man,  and  the  oftener  he  applies  it 
the  more  and  more  debased  he  will  become.  The  whole 
thing  can  be  stated  in  the  one  sentence:  I  am  opposed  to 
any  punishment  that  cannot  be  inflicted  by  a  gentleman,  and 
by  "gentleman"  I  mean  a  self-respecting,  honest,  generous 
man. 

Questio7i.  What  do  you  think  of  the  efficacy  or  the  pro- 
priety of  punishing  criminals  by  solitary  confinement? 

Answer.  Solitary  confinement  is  a  species  of  torture.  I 
am  opposed  to  all  torture.  I  think  the  criminal  should  not 
be  punished.  He  should  be  reformed,  if  he  is  capable  of 
reformation.     But,  whatever  is  done,  it  should  not  be  done 


INTERVIEWS.  379 

as  a  punishment.  Society  should  be  too  noble,  too  genex^ 
ous,  to  harbor  a  thought  of  revenge.  Society  should  not 
punish,  it  should  protect  itself  only.  It  should  endeavor  to 
refotrm  the  individual.  Now,  solitary  confinement  does  not, 
I  imagine,  tend  to  the  reformation  of  the  individual. 
Neither  can  the  person  in  that  position  do  good  to  any 
human  being.  The  prisoner  will  be  altogether  happier 
when  his  mind  is  engaged,  when  his  hands  are  busy,  when 
he  has  something  to  do.  This  keeps  alive  what  we  call 
cheerfulness.     And  let  me  say  a  word  on  this  point. 

I  don't  believe  the  State  ought  to  steal  the  labor  of  a  con- 
vict. Here  is  a  man  who  has  a  family.  H-^,  is  sent  to  the 
penitentiary.  He  works  from  morning  till  u'ght.  Now,  in 
my  judgment,  he  ought  to  be  paid  for  that  labor  over  and 
above  what  it  costs  to  keep  him.  That  money  should  be 
sent  to  his  family.  That  money  should  be  subject,  at  least, 
to  his  direction.  If  he  is  a  single  man,  when  he  comes  out 
of  the  penitentiary  he  should  be  given  his  earnings,  and  all 
his  earnings,  so  that  he  would  not  have  the  feeling  that  he 
had  been  robbed,  A  statement  should  be  given  to  him  to 
show  what  it  nad  cost  to  keep  him  and  how  much  his  labor 
had  brought  and  the  balance  remaining  in  his  favor.  With 
this  little  balance  he  could  go  out  into  the  world  with  some- 
thing like  independence.  This  little  balance  would  be  a 
foundation  for  his  honesty — a  foundation  for  a  resolution 
on  his  part  to  be  a  man.  But  now  each  one  goes  out  with 
the  feeling  that  he  has  not  only  beeu  punished  for  the  crime 
which  he  committed,  but  that  he  han  been  robbed  of  the  re- 
sults of  his  labor  while  there. 

The  idea  is  simply  preposterous  that  the  people  sent  to 
the  penitentiary  should  live  in  idleness.  They  should  have 
the  benefit  of  their  labor,  and  if  you  give  them  the  benefit  of 
their  labor  they  will  turn  out  as  good  work  as  if  they 
were  out  of  the  penitentiary.  They  will  have  the  same 
reason  to  do  their  best.     Consequently,  poor  articles,  poorly 


38o  INTERVIEWS. 

constructed  things,  would  not  come  into  competition  with 
good  articles  made  by  free  people  outside  of  the  walls. 

Now  many  mechanics  are  complaining  because  work  done 
in  the  penitentiaries  is  brought  into  competition  with  their 
work.  But  the  only  reason  that  convict  work  is  cheaper  is 
because  the  poor  wretch  who  does  it  is  robbed.  The  only 
reason  that  the  work  is  poor  is  because  the  man  who  does 
it  has  no  interest  in  its  being  good.  If  he  had  the  profit  of 
his  own  labor  he  would  do  the  best  that  was  in  him,  and  the 
consequence  would  be  that  the  wares  manufactured  in  the 
prisons  would  be  as  good  as  those  manufactured  elsewhere. 
For  instance,  we  will  say  here  are  three  or  four  men  work- 
ing together.  They  are  all  free  men.  One  commits  a  crime 
and  he  is  sent  to  the  penitentiary.  Is  it  possible  that  his 
companions  would  object  to  his  being  paid  for  honest  work 
in  the  penitentiary  ? 

And  let  me  say  right  here,  all  labor  is  honest.  Whoever 
makes  a  useful  thing,  the  labor  is  honest,  no  matter  whether 
the  work  is  done  in  a  penitentiary  or  in  a  palace ;  in  a  hovel 
or  the  open  field.  Wherever  work  is  done  for  the  good  of 
others,  it  is  honest  work.  If  the  laboring  men  would  stop 
and  think,  they  would  know  that  they  support  everybody. 
Labor  pays  all  the  taxes.  Labor  supports  all  the  peniten- 
tiaries. Labor  pays  the  warden.  Labor  pays  everything, 
and  if  the  convicts  are  allowed  to  live  in  idleness  labor  must 
pay  their  board.  Every  cent  of  tax  is  borne  by  the  back  of 
labor.  No  matter  whether  your  tariff  is  put  on  champagne 
and  diamonds,  it  has  to  be  paid  by  the  men  and  women  who 
work — those  who  plow  in  the  fields,  who  wash  and  iron, 
who  stand  by  the  forge,  who  run  the  cars  and  work  in  the 
mines,  and  by  those  who  battle  with  the  waves  of  the  sea. 
Labor  pays  every  bill. 

There  is  one  little  thing  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  all  who  happen  to  read  this  interview,  and  that  is 
this  :     Undoubtedly  you  think  of  all  criminals  with  horror 


INTERVIEWS.  381 

and  when  you  hear  about  them  you  are,  in  all  probability, 
filled  with  virtuous  indignation.  But,  first  of  all,  I  want 
you  to  think  of  what  you  have  in  fact  done.  Secondly,  I 
want  you  to  think  of  what  you  have  wanted  to  do.  Thirdly, 
I  want  you  to  reflect  whether  you  were  prevented  from 
doing  what  you  wanted  to  do  by  fear  or  by  lack  of  oppor- 
tunity.    Then  perhaps  you  will  have  more  charity. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  new  legislation  in  the 
State  changing  the  death  penalty  to  death  by  electricity? 

Answer.  If  death  by  electricity  is  less  painful  than 
hanging,  then  the  law,  so  far  as  that  goes,  is  good.  There  is 
not  the  slightest  propriet}^  in  inflicting  upon  the  person 
executed  one  single  unnecessary  pang,  because  that  par- 
takes of  the  nature  of  revenge — that  is  to  say, of  hatred — • 
and,  as  a  consequence,  the  State  shows  the  same  spirit  that 
the  criminal  was  animated  by  when  he  took  the  life  of  his 
neighbor.  If  the  death  penalty  is  to  be  inflicted,  let  it  be 
done  in  the  most  humane  way.  For  my  part,  I  should  like 
to  see  the  criminal  removed,  if  he  must  be  removed,  with 
the  same  care  and  with  the  same  mercy  that  you  would 
perform  a  surgical  operation.  Why  inflict  pain  ?  Who 
wants  it  inflicted  ?  What  good  can  it,  by  any  possibilit}^, 
do  ?  To  inflict  unnecessary  pain  hardens  him  who  inflicts 
it,  hardens  each  among  those  who  witness  it,  and  tends  to 
demoralize  the  community. 

Oiiestion.  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  punishments  have  grown 
>ess  and  less  severe  for  many  years  past  ? 

Answer.  In  the  old  times  punishment  was  the  only 
means  of  reformation.  If  anybody  did  wrong,  punish  him. 
If  people  still  continued  to  commit  the  same  offence,  in- 
crease the  punishment ;  and  that  went  on  until  in  what 
they  call  ''civilized  countries"  they  hanged  people,  provided 
they  stole  the  value  of  one  shilling.  But  larceny  kept 
right  on.  There  was  no  diminution.  So,  for  treason,  bar- 
barous punishments  were  inflicted.     Those  guilty  of  that 


382  INTERVIEWS. 

offence  were  torn  asunder  by  horses  ;  their  entrails  were 
cut  out  of  them  while  they  were  yet  living  and  thrown  into 
their  faces ;  their  bodies  were  quartered  and  their  heads 
were  set  on  pikes  above  the  gates  of  the  city.  Yet  there 
was  a  hundred  times  more  treason  then  than  now.  Everj^- 
time  a  man  was  executed  and  mutilated  and  tortured  in  this 
way  the  seeds  of  other  treasons  were  sown. 

So  in  the  church  there  was  the  same  idea.  No  reformat 
tion  but  by  punishment.  Of  course  in  this  world  the  pun- 
ishment stopped  when  the  poor  wretch  was  dead.  It  was 
found  that  that  punishment  did  not  reform,  so  the  church 
said :  ''After  death  it  will  go  right  on,  getting  worse  and 
worse,  forever  and  forever."  Finally  it  was  found  that  this 
did  not  tend  to  the  reformation  of  mankind.  Slowly  the 
fires  of  hell  have  been  dying  out.  The  climate  has  been 
changing  from  year  to  year.  Men  have  lost  confidence  in 
the  power  of  the  thumbscrew,  the  fagot,  and  the  rack  here, 
and  they  are  losing  confidence  in  the  flames  of  perdition 
hereafter.  In  other  words,  it  is  simply  a  question  of 
civilization. 

When  men  become  civilized  in  matters  of  thought,  they 
will  know  that  every  human  being  has  the  right  to  think 
for  himself,  and  the  right  to  express  his  honest  thoughts. 
Then  the  world  of  thought  will  be  free.  At  that  time  they 
will  be  intelligrent  enough  to  know  that  men  have  different 
thoughts,  that  their  ways  are  not  alike,  because  they 
have  lived  under  different  circumstances,  and  in  that  time 
they  will  also  know  that  men  act  as  they  are  acted  upon. 
And  it  is  my  belief  that  the  time  will  come  when  men  will 
no  more  think  of  punishing  a  man  because  he  has  com- 
mitted the  crime  of  larceny  than  they  will  think  of  punish- 
ing a  man  because  he  has  the  consumption.  In  the  first 
case  they  will  endeavor  to  reform  him,  and  in  the  second 
case  they  will  endeavor  to  cure  him. 

The  intelligent  people  of  the  world,  many  of  them,  are 


INTERVIEWS. 


38a 


endeavoring  to  find  out  the  great  facts  in  Nature  that  con- 
trol the  dispositions  of  men.  So  other  intelligent  people 
are  endeavoring  to  ascertain  the  facts  and  conditions  thai: 
govern  what  we  call  health,  and  what  we  call  disease,  and 
the  object  of  these  people  is  finally  to  produce  a  race  with- 
out disease  of  flesh  and  without  disease  of  mind.  These 
people  look  forward  to  the  time  when  there  need  be  neither 

hospitals  nor  penitentiaries. — New  York  World,  August  5, 1388. 

WOMAN'S  RIGHT  TO  DIVORCE. 

Question.  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll,  the  great  Agnostic,  has 
always  been  an  ardent  defender  of  the  sanctity  of  the  home 
and  of  the  marriage  relation.  Apropos  of  the  horrible 
account  of  a  man's  tearing  out  the  eyes  of  his  wife  at  Far 
Rockaway  last  week,  Colonel  Ingersoll  was  asked  what 
recourse  a  woman  had  under  such  circumstances  ? 

Answer.  I  read  the  account,  and  I  don't  remember  of  ever 
having  read  anything  more  perfectly  horrible  and  cruel.  It 
is  impossible  for  me  to  imagine  such  a  monster,  or  to  account 
for  such  an  inhuman  human  being.  How  a  man  could 
deprive  a  human  being  of  sight,  except  where  some  religious 
question  is  involved,  is  beyond  my  comprehension.  We 
know  that  for  many  centuries  frightful  punishments  were 
inflicted,  and  inflicted  by  the  pious,  by  the  theologians,  by 
the  spiritual  minded,  and  by  those  who  "  loved  their 
neighbors  as  themselves."  We  read  the  accounts  of  how 
the  lids  of  men's  eyes  were  cut  off  and  then  the  poor  victims 
tied  where  the  sun  would  shine  upon  their  lidless  orbs ;  of 
others  who  were  buried  alive  ;  of  others  staked  out  on  the 
gands  of  the  sea,  to  be  drowned  by  the  rising  tide;  of 
others  put  in  sacks  filled  with  snakes.  Yet  these  things 
r.ppeared  far  away,  and  we  flattered  ourselves  that,  to  a  great 
degree,  the  world  had  outgrown  these  atrocities  ;  and  now, 
heie,  near  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century,  we  find  a  man 
— a  husband — cruel  enough  to  put  out  the  eyes  of  the 


384  INTERVIEWS. 

wcman  he  swore  to  love,  protect  and  cherish.  This  man 
h'cS  probably  been  taught  that  there  is  forgiveness  for  every 
crime,  and  now  imagines  that  when  he  repents  there  will  be 
more  joy  in  heaven  over  him  tnan  over  ninety  and  nine 
good  and  loving  husbands  who'  have  treated  their  wives  in 
the  best  possible  manner,  and  who,  instead  of  tearing  out 
their  eyes,  have  filled  their  lives  with  content  and  covered 
their  faces  with  kisses. 

Question.  You  told  me,  last  week,  in  a  general  way,  what 
society  should  do  with  the  husband  in  such  a  case  as  that. 
I  would  like  to  ask  you  to-day,  what  you  think  society 
ought  to  do  with  the  wife  in  such  a  case,  or  what  ought 
the  wife  to  be  permitted  to  do  for  herself  ? 

Answer.  When  we  take  into  consideration  the  crime  of 
the  man  who  blinded  his  wife,  it  is  impossible  not  to  think 
of  the  right  of  divorce.  Many  people  insist  that  marriage 
is  an  indissoluble  tie ;  that  nothing  can  break  it,  and  that 
nothing  can  release  either  party  from  the  bond.  Now,  take 
this  case  at  Far  Rockaway.  One  year  ago  the  husband  tore 
out  one  of  his  wife's  eyes.  Had  she  then  good  cause  for 
divorce  ?  Is  it  possible  that  an  infinitely  wise  and  good  God 
would  insist  on  this  poor,  helpless  w^oman  remaining  with 
the  wild  beast,  her  husband  ?  Can  an3^one  imagine  that  such 
a  course  would  add  to  the  joy  of  Paradise,  or  even  tend  to 
keep  one  harp  in  tune  ?  Can  the  good  of  society  require  the 
woman  to  remain  ?  She  did  remain,  and  the  result  is  that 
the  other  eye  has  been  torn  from  its  socket  by  the  hands  of 
the  husband.  Is  she  entitled  to  a  divorce  now  ?  And  if  she 
is  granted  one,  is  virtue  in  danger,  and  shall  w^e  lose  the 
high  ideal  of  home  life  ?  Can  anything  be  more  infamous 
than  to  endeavor  to  make  a  woman,  under  such  circum- 
stances, remain  with  such  a  man  ?  It  may  be  said  that  she 
should  leave  him — that  they  should  live  separate  and  apart. 
That  is  to  say,  that  this  woman  should  be  deprived  of  a 
home ;  that  she  should  not  be  entitled  to  the  love  of  man ; 


INTERVIEWS.  385 

that  she  should  remain,  for  the  rest  of  her  days,  worse  than 
a  widow.  That  is  to  say,  a  wife,  hiding,  keeping  out  of  the 
way,  secreting  herself  from  the  hyena  to  whom  she  was 
married.  Nothing,  in  my  judgment,  can  exceed  the  hearf.- 
lessness  of  a  law  or  of  a  creed  that  would  compel  this 
woman  to  remain  the  wife  of  this  monster.  And  it  is  nof 
only  cruel,  but  it  is  immoral,  low,  vulgar. 

The  ground  has  been  taken  that  woman  would  lose  her 
dignity  if  marriages  were  dissoluble.  Is  it  necessary  to  lose 
your  freedom  in  order  to  retain  your  character,  in  order  to 
be  womanly  or  manly  ?  Must  a  woman  in  order  to  retain 
her  womanhood  become  a  slave,  a  serf,  with  a  wild  beast  for 
a  master,  or  with  society  for  a  master,  or  with  a  phantom 
for  a  master  ?  Has  not  the  married  woman  the  right  of  self- 
defence  ?  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  society  to  protect  her  from 
her  husband  ?  If  she  owes  no  duty  to  her  husband ;  if  it  is 
impossible  for  her  to  feel  toward  him  any  thrill  of  affection, 
what  is  there  of  marriage  left?  What  part  of  the  contract 
remains  in  force?  She  is  not  to  live  with  him,  because  she 
abhors  him.  She  is  not  to  remain  in  the  same  house  with 
him,  for  fear  he  may  kill  her.  What,  then,  are  their  rela- 
tions ?  Do  they  sustain  any  relation  except  that  of  hunter 
and  hunted — that  is,  of  tyrant  and  victim  ?  And  is  it  desir- 
able that  this  relation  should  be  rendered  sacred  by  a 
a  church  ?  Is  it  desirable  to  have  families  raised  under  such 
circumstances  ?  Are  we  really  in  need  of  the  children  born 
of  such  parents  ?  If  the  woman  is  not  in  fault,  does  society 
insist  that  her  life  should  be  wrecked  ?  Can  the  virtue  of 
others  be  preserved  only  by  the  destruction  of  her  happi- 
ness, and  by  what  might  be  called  her  perpetual  imprison- 
ment ?  I  hope  the  clergy  who  believe  in  the  sacredness  of 
marriage — in  the  indissolubility  of  the  marriage  tie — will 
give  their  opinions  on  this  case.  I  believe  that  marriage  is 
the  most  important  contract  that  human  beings  can  make.  I 
always  believe  that  a  man  will  keep  his  contract;  that  a 


386  INTERVIEWS. 

woman,  in  the  highest  sense,  will  keep  hers.     But  suppose 
the  man  does  not.     Is  the  woman  still  bound  ? 

Is  there  no  mutuality  ?  What  is  a  contract  ?  It  is  where 
one  party  promises  to  do  something  in  consideration  that 
the  other  party  will  do  something.  That  is  to  say,  there  is 
a  consideration  on  both  sides,  moving  from  one  to  the  other. 
A  contract  without  consideration  is  null  and  void ;  and  a  con- 
tract duly  entered  into,  where  the  consideration  of  one  party 
is  withheld,  is  voidable,  and  can  be  voided  by  the  party 
who  has  kept,  or  who  is  willing  to  keep,  the  contract.  A 
marriage  without  love  is  bad  enough.  But  what  can  we 
say  of  a  marriage  where  the  parties  hate  each  other  ?  Is 
there  any  morality  in  this — any  virtue?  Will  any  decent 
person  say  that  a  woman,  true,  good  and  loving,  should  be 
compelled  to  live  with  a  man  she  detests,  compelled  to  be 
the  mother  of  his  children  ?  Is  there  a  woman  in  the  world 
who  would  not  shrink  from  this  herself  ?  And  is  there  a 
woman  so  heartless  and  so  immoral  that  she  would  force 
another  to  bear  what  she  would  shudderingly  avoid  ?  Let  us 
bring  these  questions  home.  In  other  words,  let  us  have 
some  sense,  some  feeling,  some  heart — and  just  a  little 
brain.  Marriages  are  made  by  men  and  women.  They  are 
not  made  by  the  State,  and  they  are  not  made  by  the 
gods.  By  this  time  people  should  learn  that  human 
happiness  is  the  foundation  of  virtue — the  foundation  of 
morality.  Nothing  is  moral  that  does  not  tend  to  the  well- 
being  of  sentient  beings.  Nothing  is  virtuous  the  result  of 
which  is  not  a  human  good.  The  world  has  always  been 
living  for  phantoms,  for  ghosts,  for  monsters  begotten  by 
ignorance  and  fear.  The  world  should  learn  to  live  for 
itself.  Man  should,  by  this  time,  be  convinced  that  all  the 
reasons  for  doing  right,  and  all  the  reasons  for  doing 
wrong,  are  right  here  in  this  world — all  within  the  horizon 
of  this  life.  And  besides,  we  should  have  imagination  to 
pnt  ourselves  in  the  place  of  another.     Let  a  man  suppose 


INTERVIEWS.  38> 

himself  a  helpless  wife,  beaten  by  a  brute  who  believes  in 
the  indissolubility  of  marriage.     Would  he  want  a  divorce  ? 

I  suppose  that  very  few  people  have  any  adequate  idea 
of  the  sufferings  of  women  and  children ;  of  the  number  of 
wives  who  tremble  when  they  hear  the  footsteps  of  a 
returning  husband ;  of  the  number  of  children  who  hide 
when  they  hear  the  voice  of  a  father.  Very  few  people 
know  the  number  of  blows  that  fall  on  the  flesh  of  the  help- 
less every  day.  Few  know  the  nights  of  terror  passed  by 
mothers  holding  young  children  at  their  breasts.  Compared 
with  this,  the  hardships  of  poverty,  borne  by  those  who  love 
each  other,  are  nothing.  Men  and  women,  truly  married, 
bear  the  sufferings  of  poverty.  They  console  each  other ; 
their  affection  gives  to  the  heart  of  each  perpetual  sunshine. 
But  think  of  the  others !  I  have  said  a  thousand  times  that 
the  home  is  the  unit  of  good  government.  When  we  have 
kind  fathers  and  loving  mothers,  then  we  shall  have  civilized 
nations,  and  not  until  then.  Civilization  commences  at  the 
hearthstone.  When  intelligence  rocks  the  cradle — when 
the  house  is  filled  with  philosophy  and  kindness — you  will 
see  a  world  at  peace.  Justice  will  sit  in  the  courts,  wisdom 
in  the  legislative  halls,  and  over  all,  like  the  dome  of  heaven, 
will  be  the  spirit  of  Liberty  ! 

Question.  What  is  your  idea  with  regard  to  divorce  ? 

Answer,  My  idea  is  this :  As  I  said  before,  marriage  is 
the  most  sacred  contract — the  most  important  contract — that 
human  beings  can  make.  As  a  rule,  the  woman  dowers  the 
husband  with  her  youth — with  all  she  has.  From  this  con- 
tract the  husband  should  never  be  released  unless  the  wife 
has  broken  a  condition ;  that  is  to  say,  has  failed  to  fulfill 
the  contract  of  marriage.  On  the  other  hand,  the  woman 
should  be  allowed  a  divorce  for  the  asking.  This  should 
be  granted  in  public,  precisely  as  the  marriage  should  be 
in  public.  Every  marriage  should  be  known.  There  should 
be  witnesses,  to  the  end  that  the  character  of  the  contract 


388  INTERVIEWS. 

entered  into  should  be  understood;  and  as  all  marriage 
records  should  be  kept,  so  the  divorce  should  be  open,  pub- 
lic and  known.  The  property  should  be  divided  by  a  court 
of  equity,  under  certain  regulations  of  law.  If  there  are 
children,  they  should  be  provided  for  through  the  property 
and  the  parents.  People  should  understand  that  men  and 
women  are  not  virtuous  by  law.  They  should  comprehend 
the  fact  that  law  does  not  create  virtue — that  law  is  not  the 
foundation,  the  fountain,  of  love.  They  should  understand 
that  love  is  in  the  human  heart,  and  that  real  love  is  virtu- 
ous. People  who  love  each  other  will  be  true  to  each  other. 
The  death  of  love  is  the  commencement  of  vice.  Besides 
this,  there  is  a  public  opinion  that  has  great  weight.  When 
that  public  opinion  is  right,  it  does  a  vast  amount  of  good, 
and  when  wrong,  a  great  amount  of  harm.  People  marry, 
or  should  marry,  because  it  increases  the  happiness  of  each 
and  all.  But  where  the  marriage  turns  out  to  have  been  a 
mistake,  and  where  the  result  is  misery,  and  not  happiness, 
the  quicker  they  are  divorced  the  better,  not  only  for  them- 
selves, but  for  the  community  at  large.  These  arguments 
are  generall}'-  answered  by  some  donkey  braying  about  free 
love,  and  by  "free  love"  he  means  a  condition  of  society  in 
which  there  is  no  love.  The  persons  who  make  this  cry  are^ 
in  all  probability,  incapable  of  the  sentiment,  of  the  feeling, 
known  as  love.  They  judge  others  by  themselves,  and  they 
imagine  that  without  law  there  would  be  no  restraint. 

What  do  they  say  of  natural  modesty?  Do  they  forget 
that  people  have  a  choice?  Do  they  not  understand  some- 
thing of  the  human  heart,  and  that  true  love  has  always 
been  as  pure  as  the  morning  star?  Do  they  believe  that  by 
forcing  people  to  remain  together  who  despise  each  other, 
they  are  adding  to  the  purity  of  the  marriage  relation?  Do 
they  not  know  that  all  marriage  is  an  outward  act,  testifying 
to  that  which  has  happened  in  the  heart  ?  Still,  I  always 
believe  that  words  are  wasted  on  such  people.     It  is  useless 


INTERVIEWS.  38^ 

to  talk  to  anybody  about  music  who  is  unable  to  distinguish 
one  tune  from  another.  It  is  useless  to  argue  with  a  man 
who  regards  his  wife  as  his  property,  and  it  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  suggest  anything  to  a  gentleman  who  imagines  that 
society  is  so  constructed  that  it  really  requires,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  itself,  that  the  lives  of  good  and  noble  women 
should  be  wrecked.  I  am  a  believer  in  the  virtue  of  woman, 
in  the  honesty  of  man.  The  average  woman  is  virtuous ; 
the  average  man  is  honest,  and  the  history  of  the  world 
shows  it.  If  it  were  not  so,  society  would  be  impossible.  I 
don't  mean  by  this  that  most  men  are  perfect,  but  what  I 
mean  is  this :  That  there  is  far  more  good  than  evil  in  the 
average  human  being,  and  that  the  natural  tendency  of  most 
people  is  toward  the  good  and  toward  the  right.  And  I 
most  passionately  deny  that  the  good  of  society  demands 
that  any  good  person  should  suffer.  I  do  not  regard  gov- 
ernment as  a  Juggernaut,  the  wheels  of  which  must,  of  ne- 
cessity, roll  over  and  crush  the  virtuous,  the  self-denying  and 
the  good.  My  doctrine  is  the  exact  opposite  of  what  is 
known  as  free  love.  I  believe  in  the  marriage  of  true 
minds  and  of  true  hearts.  But  I  believe  that  thousands  of 
people  are  married  who  do  not  love  each  other.  That  is  the 
misfortune  of  our  century.  Other  things  are  taken  into 
consideration — position,  wealth,  title  and  the  thousand 
things  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  real  affection.  Where 
men  and  women  truly  love  each  other,  that  love,  in  my  judg- 
ment, lasts  as  long  as  life.  The  greatest  line  that  I  know 
of  in  the  poetry  of  the  world  is  in  the  1 1 6th  sonnet  of  Shakes- 
peare: "Love  is  not  love  which  alters  when  it  alteration 
finds." 

Question.  Why  do  you  make  such  a  distinction  between 
the  rights  of  man  and  the  rights  of  woman  ? 

Answer.  The  woman  has,  as  her  capital,  her  youth,  her 
beauty.  We  will  say  that  she  is  married  at  twenty  or  twenty- 
five.     In  a  few  years  she  has  lost  her  beauty.     During  these 


5QC 


INTERVIEWS. 


years  the  man,  so  far  as  capacity  to  make  money  is  con- 
cerned— to  do  something — has  grown  better  and  better. 
That  is  to  say,  his  chances  have  improved ;  hers  have  di- 
minished. She  has  dowered  him  with  the  Spring  of  her 
life,  and  as  her  life  advances  her  chances  decrease.  Con- 
sequently, I  would  give  her  the  advantage,  'and  I  would  not 
compel  her  to  remain  with  him  against  her  will.  It  seems 
to  me  far  worse  to  be  a  wife  upon  compulsion  than  to  be  a 
husband  upon  compulsion.  Besides  this,  I  have  a  feeling 
of  infinite  tenderness  toward  mothers.  The  woman  that 
bears  children  certainly  should  not  be  compelled  to  live 
with  a  man  whom  she  despises.  The  suffering  is  enough 
when  the  father  of  the  child  is  to  her  the  one  man  of  all  this 
world.  Many  people  who  have  a  mechanical  apparatus  in 
their  breasts  that  assists  in  the  circulation  of  what  they  call 
blood,  regard  these  views  as  sentimental.  But  when  we 
take  sentiment  out  of  the  world  nothing  is  left  worth  living 
for,  and  when  you  get  sentiment  out  of  the  heart  it  is  noth- 
ing more  or  less  than  a  pump,  an  old  piece  of  rubber  that 
has  acquired  the  habit  of  contracting  and  dilating.  But  I 
have  this  consolation :  The  people  that  do  not  agree  with 
me  are  those  that  do  not  understand  me. — New  York  World,  isss. 

SECULARISM. 

Question.  Colonel,  what  is  your  opinion  of  Secularism  ? 
Do  you  regard  it  as  a  religion  ? 

Answer.  I  understand  that  the  word  Secularism  em- 
braces everything  that  is  of  any  real  interest  or  value  to 
the  human  race.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  everybody  will 
admit  that  well-being  is  the  only  good  ;  that  is  to  say,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  anything  of  real  value  that 
does  not  tend  either  to  preserve  or  to  increase  the  happi- 
ness of  some  sentient  being.  Secularism,  therefore,  covers 
the  entire  territory.  It  fills  the  circumference  of  human 
knowledge  and  of   human  effort.     It  is,  you  may  say,  the 


INTERVIEWS.  391 

Teligion  of  this  world ;  but  if  there  is  another  world,  it  is 
necessarily  the  religion  of  that,  as  well. 

Man  finds  himself  in  this  world  naked  and  hungry.  He 
needs  food,  raiment,  shelter.  He  finds  himself  filled  with 
almost  innumerable  wants.  To  gratify  these  wants  is  the 
principal  business  of  life.  To  gratify  them  without  inter- 
fering with  other  people  is  the  course  pursued  by  all  honest 
men. 

Secularism  teaches  us  to  be  good  here  and  now.  I  know 
nothing  better  than  goodness.  Secularism  teaches  us  to  be 
just  here  and  now.  It  is  impossible  to  be  juster  than 
just. 

Man  can  be  as  just  in  this  world  as  in  any  other,  and 
justice  must  be  the  same  in  all  worlds.  Secularism 
teaches  a  man  to  be  generous,  and  generosity  is  certainly 
as  good  here  as  it  can  be  anywhere  else.  Secularism 
teaches  a  man  to  be  charitable,  and  certainly  charity  is 
as  beautiful  in  this  world  and  in  this  short  life  as  it  could 
be  were  man  immortal. 

But  orthodox  people  insist  that  there  is  something  higher 
than  Secularism  ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  mind  of  man 
can  conceive  of  nothing  better,  nothing  higher,  nothing 
more  spiritual,  than  goodness,  justice,  generosity,  charity. 
Neither  has  the  mind  of  man  been  capable  of  finding  a 
nobler  incentive  to  action  than  human  love.  Secularism 
has  to  do  with  every  possible  relation.  It  says  to 
the  young  man  and  to  the  young  woman :  "  Don't 
marry  unless  you  can  take  care  of  yourselves  and  your 
children."  It  says  to  the  parents  :  *'  Live  for  your  children  ; 
put  forth  every  effort  to  the  end  that  your  children  ma)-  know 
more  than  you — that  they  may  be  better  and  grander  than 
you."  It  says :  "  You  have  no  right  to  bring  children 
into  the  world  that  you  are  not  able  to  educate  and  feed 
and  clothe."  It  saj's  to  those  who  have  diseases  that  can  be 
transmitted  to  children  :  ''  Do  not  marry  ;  do  not  become 


392  INTERVIEWS. 

parents ;  do  not   perpetuate   suffering,   deformity,   agony, 
imbecility,  insanity,  poverty,  wretchedness." 

Secularism  tells  all  children  to  do  the  best  they  can  for 
their  parents — to  discharge  every  duty  and  every  obligation. 
It  defines  the  relation  that  should  exist  between  hus- 
band and  wife ;  between  parent  and  child ;  between  the 
citizen  and  the  Nation.  And  not  only  that,  but  between 
nations. 

Secularism  is  a  religion  that  is  to  be  used  every  where  and 
at  all  times — that  is  to  be  taught  everywhere  and  practiced 
at  all  times.  It  is  not  a  religion  that  is  so  dangerous  that 
it  must  be  kept  out  of  the  schools  ;  it  is  not  a  religion  that 
is  so  dangerous  that  it  must  be  kept  out  of  politics.  It  be- 
longs in  the  schools ;  it  belongs  at  the  polls.  It  is  the  busi- 
ness of  Secularism  to  teach  every  child ;  to  teach  every 
voter.  It  is  its  business  to  discuss  all  political  problems, 
and  to  decide  all  questions  that  affect  the  rights  or  the 
happiness  of  a  human  being. 

Orthodox  religion  is  a  firebrand ;  it  must  be  kept  out  of 
the  schools ;  it  must  be  kept  out  of  politics.  All  the 
churches  unite  in  saying  that  orthodox  religion  is  not  for 
every  day  use.  The  Catholics  object  to  any  Protestant  re- 
ligion being  taught  to  children.  Protestants  object  to  any 
Catholic  religion  being  taught  to  children.  But  the  Secu- 
larist wants  his  religion  taught  to  all ;  and  his  religion 
can  produce  no  feeling,  for  the  reason  that  it  consists  of 
facts — of  truths.  And  all  of  it  is  important ;  important  for 
the  child,  important  for  the  parent,  important  for  the  poli- 
tician— for  the  President — for  all  in  power ;  important  to 
every  legislator,  to  every  professional  man,  to  every  laborer 
and  to  every  farmer — that  is  to  say,  to  every  human  being. 

The  great  benefit  of  Secularism  is  that  it  appeals  to  the 
reason  of  every  man.  It  asks  every  man  to  think  for  him- 
self. It  does  not  threaten  punishment  if  a  man  thinks, 
but   it  offers   a  reward,  for  fear   that   he  will  not  think. 


INTERVIEWS.  393 

It  does  not  say,  "  You  will  be  damned  in  another  world  if 
you  think."  But  it  says, "  You  will  be  damned  in  this  world 
if  you  do  not  think." 

Secularism  preserves  the  manhood  and  the  womanhood 
of  all.  It  says  to  each  human  being:  "  Stand  upon  your 
own  feet.  Count  one !  Examine  for  yourself.  Investigate, 
observe,  think.  Express  your  opinion.  Stand  by  your 
judgment,  unless  you  are  convinced  you  are  wrong,  and 
when  you  are  convinced,  you  can  maintain  and  preserve 
3^our  manhood  or  your  womanhood  only  by  admitting  that 
you  were  wrong.'' 

It  is  impossible  that  the  whole  world  should  agree  on  one 
creed.  It  may  be  impossible  that  any  two  human  beings 
can  agree  exactly  in  religious  belief.  Secularism  teaches 
that  each  one  must  take  care  of  himself,  that  the  first  duty 
of  man  is  to  himself,  to  the  end  that  he  may  be  not  only 
useful  to  himself,  but  to  others.  He  who  fails  to  take 
care  of  himself  becomes  a  burden ;  the  first  duty  of  man  is 
not  to  be  a  burden. 

Every  Secularist  can  give  a  reason  for  his  creed.  First 
of  all,  he  believes  in  work — taking  care  of  himself.  He  be- 
lieves in  the  cultivation  of  the  intellect,  to  the  end  that  he 
may  take  advantage  of  the  forces  of  nature — to  the  end  that 
he  may  be  clothed  and  fed  and  sheltered. 

He  also  believes  in  giving  to  every  other  human  being 
every  right  that  he  claims  for  himself.  He  does  not  depend 
on  prayer.  He  has  no  confidence  in  ghosts  or  phantoms. 
He  knows  nothing  of  another  world,  and  knows  just  as  little 
of  a  First  Cause.  But  what  little  he  does  know,  he  endeav- 
ors to  use,  and  to  use  for  the  benefit  of  himself  and  others^ 

He  knows  that  he  sustains  certain  relations  to  other 
sentient  beings,  and  he  endeavors  to  add  to  the  aggregate  of 
human  joy.  He  is  his  own  church,  his  own  priest,  his  own 
clergyman  and  his  own  pope.  He  decides  for  himself:  \n 
other  words,  he  is  a  free  man. 


394  INTERVIEWS. 

He  also  lias  a  Bible,  and  this  Bible  embraces  all  the  good 
and  true  things  that  have  been  written,  no  matter  by  whom, 
or  in  what  language,  or  in  what  time.  He  accepts  every- 
thing that  he  believes  to  be  true,  and  rejects  all  that  he 
thinks  is  false.  He  knows  that  nothing  is  added  to  the 
probability  of  an  event,  because  there  has  been  an  account 
of  it  written  and  printed. 

All  that  has  been  said  that  is  true  is  part  of  his  Bible. 
Every  splendid  and  noble  thought,  every  good  word,  every 
kind  action — all  these  you  will  find  in  his  Bible.  And,  in 
addition  to  these,  all  that  is  absolutely  known — that  has 
been  demonstrated — belongs  to  the  Secularist.  All  the 
inventions,  machines — everything  that  has  been  of  assist- 
ance to  the  human  race — belongs  to  his  religion.  The 
Secularist  is  in  possession  of  everything  that  man  has. 
He  is  deprived  only  of  that  which  man  never  had.  The 
orthodox  world  believes  in  ghosts  and  phantoms,  in  dreams 
and  prayers,  in  miracles  and  monstrosities ;  that  is  to  say, 
in  modern  theology.  But  these  things  do  not  exist,  or  if 
they  do  exist,  it  is  impossible  for  a  human  being  to  ascertain 
the  fact.  Secularism  has  no  "  castles  in  Spain."  It  has  no 
glorified  fog.  It  depends  upon  realities,  upon  demonstrations  ; 
and  its  end  and  aim  is  to  make  this  world  better  every  day — 
to  do  away  with  poverty  and  crime,  and  to  cover  the  world 
with  happy  and  contented  homes. 

Let  me  say,  right  here,  that  a  few  years  ago  the  Secular 
Hall  at  Leicester,  England,  was  opened  by  a  speech  from 
George  Jacob  Holyoake,  entitled,  "  Secularism  a  Religion." 
1  have  never  read  anything  better  on  the  subject  of  Secu- 
larism than  this  address.  It  is  so  clear  and  so  manly 
that  I  do  not  see  how  any  human  being  can  read  it  with- 
out becoming  convinced,  and  almost  enraptured. 

Let  me  quote  a  few  lines  from  this  address : — 

Tbe  mind  of  man  would  die  if  it  were  not  for  Thought,  and  were 
Thought  suppressed,  God  would  rule  over  a  world  of  idiots. 
Nature  feeds  Thought,  day  and  night,  with  a  miUion  hands. 


INTERVIEWS.  395 

To  think  is  a  duty,  because  it  is  a  man's  duty  not  to  be  a  fool. 

If  man  does  not  think  himself,  he  is  an  intellectual  pauper,  living 
upon  the  truth  acquired  by  others,  and  making  no  contribution  him- 
self in  return.  He  has  no  ideas  but  such  as  he  obtains  by  "  out-door 
relief,"  and  he  goes  about  the  world  with  a  charity  mind. 

The  more  thinkers  there  are  in  the  world,  the  more  truth  there  is 
in  the  world. 

Progress  can  only  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  Conviction. 

Coercion  in  thought  is  not  progress,  it  reduces  to  ignominious  pulp 
the  backbone  of  the  mind. 

By  Religion  I  mean  the  simple  creed  of  deed  and  duty,  by  which  a 
man  seeks  his  own  welfare  in  his  own  way,  with  an  honest  and  fair 
regard  to  the  welfare  and  ways  of  others. 

In  these  thinking  and  practical  days,  men  demand  a  religion  of 
daily  life,  which  stands  on  a  business  footing. 

I  think  nothing  could  be  much  better  than  the  following, 
which  shows  the  exact  relation  that  orthodox  religion 
sustains  to  the  actual  wants  of  human  beings  : 

The  Churches  administer  a  system  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Secularism  dwells  in  a  land  of  its  own.  It  dwells  in  a  land  of  Cer- 
titude. 

In  the  Kingdom  of  Thought  there  is  no  conquest  over  man,  but 
over  foolishness  only. 

I  will  not  quote  more,  but  hope  all  who  read  this  will 
read  the  address  of  Mr.  Holyoake,  who  has,  in  my  judgment, 
defined  Secularism  with  the  greatest  possible  clearness. 

Qicestion.  What,  in  your  opinion,  are  the  best  possible 
means  to  spread  this  gospel  or  religion  of  Secularism  ? 

Answer,  This  can  only  be  done  by  the  cultivation  of  the 
mind — only  through  intelligence — because  we  are  fighting 
only  the  monsters  of  the  mind.  The  phantoms  whom  we 
are  endeavoring  to  destroy  do  not  exist ;  they  are  all  im- 
aginary. They  live  in  that  undeveloped  or  unexplored  part 
of  the  mind  that  belongs  to  barbarism. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  a  certain  portion  of  the 
mind  is  cultivated  so  that  it  rises  above  the  surrounding 
faculties  and  is  like  some  peak  that  has  lifted  itself  above 
the  clouds,  while  all  the  valleys  below  are  dark  or  dim  with 
mist  and  cloud.     It  is  in  this  valley-region,  amid  these 


39^  INTERVIEWS. 

mists,  beneath  these  clouds,  that  these  monsters  and  phan* 
toms  are  born.  And  there  they  will  remain  until  the  mind 
sheds  light — until  the  brain  is  developed. 

One  exceedingly  important  thing  is  to  teach  man  that  his 
mind  has  limitations ;  that  there  are  walls  that  he  cannot 
scale — that  he  cannot  pierce,  that  he  cannot  dig  under. 
When  a  man  finds  the  limitations  of  his  own  mind,  he 
knows  that  other  people's  minds  have  limitations.  Then, 
instead  of  believing  what  the  priest  says,  he  asks  the  priest 
questions.  In  a  few  moments  he  finds  that  the  priest  has 
been  drawing  on  his  imagination  for  what  is  beyond  the 
wall.  Consequently  he  finds  that  the  priest  knows  no  more 
than  he,  and  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  know  more 
than  he. 

An  ignorant  man  has  not  the  slightest  suspicion  of  what 
a  superior  man  may  do.  Consequently,  he  is  liable  to  be- 
come the  victim  of  the  intelligent  and  cunning.  A  man 
wholly  unacquainted  with  chemistry,  after  having  been 
shown  a  few  wonders,  is  ready  to  believe  anything.  But  a 
chemist  who  knows  something  of  the  limitations  of  that 
science — who  knows  what  chemists  have  done  and  who 
knows  the  nature  of  things — cannot  be  imposed  upon. 
When  no  one  can  be  imposed  upon,  orthodox  religion 
cannot  exist.  It  is  an  imposture,  and  there  must  be  im- 
postors and  there  must  be  victims,  or  the  religion  cannot  be 
a  success. 

Secularism  cannot  be  a  success,  universally,  as  long  as 
there  is  an  impostor  or  a  victim.  This  is  the  difference  :  The 
foundation  of  orthodox  religion  is  imposture.  The  founda- 
tion of  Secularism  is  demonstration.  Just  to  the  extent 
that  a  man  knows,  he  becomes  a  Secularist. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  action  of  the  Knights 
of  Labor  in  Indiana  in  turning  out  one  of  their  members 
because  he  was  an  Atheist,  and  because  he  objected  to  iXi& 
reading  of  the  Bible  at  lodge  meetings  ? 


interviews;  397 

Answer.  In  my  judgment,  the  Knights  of  Labor  have 
made  a  great  mistake.  They  want  liberty  for  them- 
selves— they  feel  that,  to  a  certain  extent,  they  have  been 
enslaved  and  robbed.  If  they  want  liberty,  they  should  be 
willing  to  give  liberty  to  others.  Certainly  one  of  their 
members  has  the  same  right  to  his  opinion  with  regard  to 
the  existence  of  a  God,  that  the  other  members  have  to 
theirs. 

I  do  not  blame  this  man  for  doubting  the  existence  of  a 
Supreme  Being,  provided  he  understands  the  history  of 
liberty.  When  a  man  takes  into  consideration  the  fact 
that  for  many  thousands  of  years  labor  was  unpaid,  nearly 
all  of  it  being  done  by  slaves,  and  that  millions  and  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  human  beings  were  bought  and  sold  the 
same  as  cattle,  and  that  during  all  that  time  the  religions  of 
the  world  upheld  the  practice,  and  the  priests  of  the  count- 
less unknown  gods  insisted  that  the  institution  of  slavery 
was  divine — I  do  not  wonder  that  he  comes  to  the  conclu- 
sion that,  perhaps,  after  all,  there  is  no  Supreme  Being — 
at  least  none  who  paj^s  any  particular  attention  to  the 
affairs  of  this  world. 

If  one  will  read  the  history  of  the  slave-trade,  of  the 
cruelties  practiced,  of  the  lives  sacrificed,  of  the  tortures  in- 
flicted, he  will  at  least  wonder  why  "  a  God  of  infinite  good- 
ness and  wisdom  "  did  not  interfere  just  a  little  ;  or,  at  least, 
why  he  did  not  deny  that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  trade. 
Here,  in  our  own  country,  millions  of  men  were  enslaved, 
and  hundreds  and  thousands  of  ministers  stood  up  in  their 
pulpits,  with  their  Bibles  in  front  of  them,  and  proceeded  to 
show  that  slavery  was  about  the  only  institution  that  they 
were  absolutely  certain  was  divine.  And  they  proved  it 
by  reading  passages  from  this  very  Bible  that  the  Knights 
of  Labor  in  Indiana  are  anxious  to  have  read  in  their 
meetings.  For  their  benefit,  let  me  call  their  attention  to  a 
few  passages,  and  suggest  that,  hereafter,  they  read  those 


398  INTERVIEWS. 

passages  at  every  meeting,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  al! 
the  Knights  that  the  Lord  is  on  the  side  of  those  who  work 
for  a  living  : — 

Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall 
be  of  the  heathen  round  about  you  ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen 
and  bondmaids. 

Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among 
you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  famiUes  which  are  with  you, 
which  they  begat  in  your  land  :  and  they  shall  be  your  possession. 

And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance,  for  your  children  after 
you  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession.  They  shall  be  your  bondmen 
forever. 

Nothing  seems  more  natural  to  me  than  that  a  man  who 
believes  that  labor  should  be  free,  and  that  he  who  works 
should  be  free,  should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
passages  above  quoted  are  not  entirely  on  his  side.  I 
don't  see  why  people  should  be  in  favor  of  free  bodies 
who  are  not  also  in  favor  of  free  minds.  If  the  mind  is  to 
remain  in  imprisonment,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  free 
the  body.  If  the  man  has  the  right  to  labor,  he  certainly  has 
the  right  to  use  his  mind,  because  without  mind  he  can  do  no 
labor.  As  a  rule,  the  more  mind  he  has,  the  more  valuable 
his  labor  is,  and  the  freer  his  mind  is  the  more  valuable 
it  is. 

If  the  Knights  of  Labor  expect  to  accomplish  anything 
in  this  world,  they  must  do  it  by  thinking.  They  must 
have  reason  on  their  side,  and  the  only  way  they  can  do 
anything  by  thinking  is  to  allow  each  other  to  think. 
Let  all  the  men  who  do  not  believe  in  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible,  leave  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  I  do  not  know 
how  many  would  be  left.  But  I  am  perfectly  certain  that 
those  left  will  accomplish  very  little,  simply  from  their  lack 
of  sense. 

Intelligent  clergymen  have  abandoned  the  idea  of  plenary- 
inspiration.  The  best  ministers  in  the  country  admit  that 
the  Bible  is  full  of  mistakes,  and  while  many  of  them  are 


INTERVIEWS.  399 

forced  to  say  that  slavery  is  upheld  by  the  Old  Testament 
they  also  insist  that  slavery  was  and  is,  and  forever  will  be 
wrong.  What  had  the  Knights  of  Labor  to  do  with  a  ques- 
tion of  religion  ?  What  business  is  it  of  theirs  who  believes 
or  disbelieves  in  the  religion  of  the  day  ?  Nobody  can  de- 
fend the  rights  of  labor  without  defending  the  right  to 
think. 

I  hope  that  in  time  these  Knights  will  become  intelligent 
enough  to  read  in  their  meetings  something  of  importance  ; 
something  that  applies  to  this  century ;  something  that  will 
throw  a  little  light  on  questions  under  discussion  at  the 
present  time.  The  idea  of  men  engaged  in  a  kind  of 
revolution  reading  from  Leviticus,  Deuteronomy  and  Haggai, 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  rights  of  workingmen  in 
the  nineteenth  century !  No  wonder  such  men  have  been 
swallowed  by  the  whale  of  monopoly.  And  no  wonder  that, 
while  they  are  in  the  belly  of  this  fish,  they  insist  on  casting 
out  a  man  with  sense  enough  to  understand  the  situation  ! 
The  Knights  of  Labor  have  made  a  mistake  and  the 
sooner  they  reverse  their  action  the  better  for  all  concerned. 
Nothing  should  be  taught  in  this  world  that  somebody 

does  not  know. — Secular  Thought^  Toronto,  Canada,  August  25,  1888. 

SUMMER  RECREATION— MR.  GLADSTONE. 

Question,  What  is  the  best  philosophy  of  summer  recrea- 
tion? 

Answe7\  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  one  should  be  over- 
worked. Recreation  becomes  necessary  onl}^  when  a  man 
has  abused  himself  or  has  been  abused.  Holidays  grew  out 
of  slavery.  An  intelligent  man  ought  not  to  work  so  hard 
to-day  that  he  is  compelled  to  rest  to-morrow.  Each  day 
should  have  its  labor  and  its  rest.  But  in  our  civili- 
zation, if  it  can  be  called  civilization,  every  man  is 
expected  to  devote  himself  entirely  to  business  for  the 
most   of    the  year   and   by   that  means  to   get  into   such 


400  INTERVIEWS. 

a  state  of  body  and  mind  that  he  requires,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  recreation,  the  inconveniences,  the  poor  diet,  the 
hoirible  beds,  the  little  towels,  the  warm  water,  the  stale 
eggs  and  the  tough  beef  of  the  average  "resort."  For  the 
purpose  of  getting  his  mental  and  physical  machinery  in 
fine  working  order,  he  should  live  in  a  room  for  two  or 
three  months  that  is  about  eleven  by  thirteen ;  that  is  to 
say,  he  should  live  in  a  trunk,  fight  mosquitoes,  quarrel 
with  strangers,  dispute  bills,  and  generally  enjoy  himself ; 
and  this  is  supposed  to  be  the  philosophy  of  summer 
recreation.  He  can  do  this,  or  he  can  go  to  some  extremely 
fashionable  resort  w^here  his  time  is  taken  up  in  making 
himself  and  family  presentable. 

Seriously,  there  are  few  better  summer  resorts  than  New 
York  Cit3^  If  there  were  no  city  here  it  would  be  the 
greatest  resort  for  the  summer  on  the  continent ;  with  its 
rivers,  its  bay,  with  its  wonderful  scenery,  with  the  winds 
from  the  sea,  no  better  could  be  found.  But  we  cannot  in 
this  age  of  the  world  live  in  accordance  with  philosophy. 
No  particular  theory  can  be  carried  out.  We  must  live  as 
we  must ;  we  must  earn  our  bread  and  we  must  earn  it  as 
others  do,  and,  as  a  rule,  we  must  work  when  others  work. 
Consequently,  if  we  are  to  take  any  recreation  we  must  fol- 
low the  example  of  others ;  go  when  they  go  and  come  when 
they  come.  In  other  words,  man  is  a  social  being,  and  if 
one  endeavors  to  carry  individuality  to  an  extreme  he  must 
suffer  the  consequences.  So  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to 
work  as  little  as  I  can  and  to  rest  as  much  as  I  can. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Mr.  Gladstone  as  a 
controversialist  ? 

Answer.  Undoubtedly  Mr.  Gladstone  is  a  man  of  great 
talent,  of  vast  and  varied  information,  and  undoubtedly  he 
is,  politically  speaking,  at  least,  one  of  the  greatest  men  vl 
England — possiblv  the  greatest.  As  a  controversialist,  and 
I  su-opose  by  that  you  mean  on  religious  questions,  he  is 


INTERVIEWS.  401 

certamly  as  good  as  his  cause.  Few  men  can  better  defend 
the  indefensible  than  Mr.  Gladstone.  Few  men  can  bring 
forward  more  probabilities  in  favor  of  the  improbable,  or 
more  possibilities  in  favor  of  the  impossible,  than  Mr. 
Gladstone.  He  is,  in  my  judgment,  controlled  in  the  realm 
of  religion  by  sentiment;  he  was  taught  long  ago  certain 
things  as  absolute  truths  and  he  has  never  questioned  them. 
He  has  had  all  he  can  do  to  defend  them.  It  is  of  but 
little  use  to  attack  sentiment  with  argument,  or  to  attack 
argument  with  sentiment.  A  question  of  sentiment  can 
hardly  be  discussed ;  it  is  like  a  question  of  taste.  A  man 
is  enraptured  with  a  landscape  by  Corot ;  you  cannot  argue 
him  out  of  his  rapture ;  the  sharper  the  criticism  the  greater 
his  admiration,  because  he  feels  that  it  is  incumbent  upon 
him  to  defend  the  painter  who  has  given  him  so  much  real 
pleasure.  Some  people  imagine  that  what  they  think  ought 
to  exist  must  exist,  and  that  what  they  really  desire  to  be 
true  is  true.  We  must  remember  that  Mr.  Gladstone  has 
been  what  is  called  a  deeply  religious  man  all  his  life. 
There  was  a  time  when  he  really  believed  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  government  to  see  to  it  that  the  citizens  were  relig- 
ious ;  when  he  really  believed  that  no  man  should  hold  any 
office  or  any  position  under  the  government  who  was  not 
a  believer  in  the  established  religion ;  who  was  not  a  de- 
fender of  the  parliamentary  faith.  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  has  ever  changed  his  opinions  upon  these  subjects  or 
not.  There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  his  honesty,  as 
to  his  candor.  He  says  what  he  believe.?,  and  for  his 
belief  he  gives  the  reasons  that  are  satisfactory  to  him.  To 
me  it  seems  impossible  that  miracles  can  be  defended.  I  do 
not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  bring  forward  any  evidence  that 
any  miracle  was  ever  performed ;  and  unless  miracles  have 
been  performed,  Christianity  has  no  basis  as  a  system.  Mr. 
Hume  took  the  ground  that  it  was  impossible  to  substan- 
tiate a  miracle,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  more  probable  that 


402  INTERVIEWS. 

the  witnesses  are  mistaken,  or  are  dishonest,  than  that  a 
fact  in  nature  should  be  violated.  For  instance :  A  man 
says  that  at  a  certain  time,  in  a  certain  locality,  the  attrac- 
tion of  gravitation  was  suspended;  that  there  were  several 
moments  during  which  a  cannon  ball  weighed  nothing,  dur- 
ing which  when  dropped  from  the  hand,  or  rather  when 
released  from  the  hand,  it  refused  to  fall  and  remained  in 
the  air.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  amount  of  evidence,  no 
number  of  witnesses,  could  convince  an  intelligent  man  to- 
day that  such  a  thing  occurred.  We  believe  too  thoroughly  in 
the  constancy  of  nature.  While  men  will  not  believe  wit- 
nesses who  testify  to  the  happening  of  miracles  now,  they 
seem  to  have  perfect  confidence  in  men  whom  they  never 
saw,  who  have  been  dead  for  two  thousand  years.  Of 
course  it  is  known  that  Mr.  Gladstone  has  published  a  few 
remarks  concerning  my  religious  views  and  that  I  have 
answered  him  the  best  I  could.  I  have  no  opinion  to  give 
as  to  that  controversy;  neither  would  it  be  proper  for  me  to 
say  what  I  think  of  the  arguments  advanced  by  Mr.  Glad- 
stone in  addition  to  what  I  have  already  published.  I  am 
willing  to  leave  the  controversy  where  it  is,  or  I  am  ready 
to  answer  any  further  objections  that  Mr.  Gladstone  may 
be  pleased  to  urge. 

In  my  judgment,  the  "Age  of  Faith"  is  passing  away. 
We  are  living  in  a  time  of  demonstration. 

Note  :  From  an  unfinished  interview  found  among  Colonel  IngersoU's  papers 

PROHIBITION. 

It  has  been  decided  by  many  courts  in  various  States  that 
the  traffic  in  liquor  can  be  regulated — that  it  is  a  police 
question.  It  has  been  decided  by  the  courts  in  Iowa  that 
its  manufacture  and  sale  can  be  prohibited,  and,  not  only 
so,  but  that  a  distillery  or  a  brewery  may  be  declared  a 
nuisance  and  may  legally  be  abated,  and  these  decisions  have 
"been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 


INTERVIEWS.  403 

Consequently,  it  has  been  settled  by  the  highest  tribunal 
that  States  have  the  power  either  to  regulate  or  to  prohibit 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors,  and  not  only  so,  but  that 
States  have  the  power  to  destroy  breweries  and  distilleries 
without  making  any  compensation  to  owners. 

So  it  has  always  been  considered  within  the  power  of  the 
State  to  license  the  selling  of  intoxicating  liquors.  In  other 
words,  this  question  is  one  that  the  States  can  decide  for 
themselves.  It  is  not,  and  it  should  not  be,  in  my  judgment, 
a  Federal  question.  It  is  something  with  which  the  United 
States  has  nothing  to  do.  It  belongs  to  the  States;  and 
where  a  majority  of  the  people  are  in  favor  of  prohibition 
and  pass  laws  to  that  effect,  there  is  nothing  in  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  that  interferes  with  such  action. 

The  remaining  question,  then,  is  not  a  question  of  power, 
but  a  question  of  policy,  and  at  the  threshold  of  this  ques- 
tion is  another:  Can  prohibitory  laws  be  enforced?  There 
are  to-day  in  Kansas, — a  prohibition  State — more  saloons, 
that  is  to  say,  more  places  in  which  liquor  is  sold,  than 
there  are  in  Georgia,  a  State  without  prohibition  legislation. 
There  are  more  in  Nebraska,  according  to  the  population, 
more  in  Iowa,  according  to  the  population,  than  in  many 
of  the  States  in  which  there  is  the  old  license  system.  You 
will  find  that  the  United  States  has  granted  more  licenses 
to  wholesale  and  retail  dealers  in  these  prohibition  States, — 
according  to  the  population,  than  in  many  others  in  which 
prohibition  has  not  been  adopted. 

These  facts  tend  to  show  that  it  is  not  enough  for  the 
Legislature  to  say:  "Be  it  enacted."  Behind  every  law 
there  must  be  an  intelligent  and  powerful  public  opinion. 
A  law,  to  be  enforced,  must  be  the  expression  of  such  power- 
ful and  intelligent  opinion ;  otherwise  it  becomes  a  dead  let- 
ter ;  it  is  avoided;  judges  continue  the  cases,  juries  refuse 
to  convict,  and  witnesses  are  not  particular  about  telling 
the  truth.  Such  laws  demoralize  the  community,  or,  to  put 
it  in  another  way,  demoralized  comm unities- pass  such  laws. 


4.04  INTERVIEWS. 

Qtcestion.  What  do  you  think  of  the  prohibitory  move- 
ment on  general  principles  ? 

Answer.  The  trouble  is  that  when  a  few  zealous  men. 
intending  to  reform  the  world,  endeavor  to  enforce  unpopu- 
lar laws,  they  are  compelled  to  resort  to  detectives,  to  a  sys- 
tem of  espionage.  For  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  sale 
of  liquors  somebody  has  to  watch.  Eyes  and  ears  must  be- 
come acquainted  with  keyholes.  Every  neighbor  suspects 
every  othen  A  man  with  a  bottle  or  demijohn  is  followed. 
Those  who  drink  get  behind  doors,  in  cellars  and  garrets. 
Hypocrisy  becomes  substantially  universal.  Old  fashioned 
sociability  becomes  impossible.  Hundreds  of  people  become 
suddenly  afflicted  with  a  variety  of  diseases,  for  the  cure  of 
which  alcohol  in  some  form  is  supposed  to  be  indispensable. 
Malaria  becomes  general,  and  it  is  perfectly  astonishing 
how  long  a  few  pieces  of  Peruvian  bark  will  last,  and  how 
often  the  liquor  can  be  renewed  without  absorbing  the  medi- 
cinal qualities  of  the  bark.  The  State  becomes  a  paradise 
for  patent  medicine — the  medicine  being  poor  whisky  with 
a  scientific  name. 

Physicians  become  popular  in  proportion  as  liquor  of  some 
kind  figures  in  their  prescriptions.  Then  in  the  towns 
clubs  are  formed,  the  principal  object  being  to  establish  a 
saloon,  and  in  many  instances  the  drug  store  becomes  a 
favorite  resort,  especially  on  Sundays. 

There  is,  however,  another  side  to  this  question.  It  is 
this :  Nothing  in  this  world  is  more  important  than  personal 
liberty.  Many  people  are  in  favor  of  blotting  out  the  sun 
to  prevent  the  growth  of  weeds.  This  is  the  mistake  of  all 
prohibitory  fanaticism. 

Question.  What  is  true  temperance.  Colonel  IngersoU  ? 

Answer.  Men  have  used  stimulants  for  many  thousand 
years,  and  as  much  is  used  to-day  in  various  forms  as  in  any 
other  period  of  the  world's  history.  They  are  used  with 
more  prudence  now  than  ever  before,  for  the  reason  that  the 


INTERVIEWS.  405 

average  man  is  more  intelligent  now  than  ever  before.  In- 
telligence has  much  to  do  with  temperance.  The  barbarian 
rushes  to  the  extreme,  for  the  reason  that  but  little,  com- 
paratively, depends  upon  his  personal  conduct  or  personal 
habits.  Now  the  struggle  for  life  is  so  sharp,  competition 
is  so  severe,  that  few  men  can  succeed  who  carry  a  useless 
burden.  The  business  men  of  our  country  are  compelled 
to  lead  temperate  lives,  othenv^ise  their  credit  is  gone.  Men 
of  wealth,  men  of  intelligence,  do  not  wish  to  employ  in- 
temperate physicians.  They  are  not  willing  to  trust  their 
health  or  their  lives  with  a  physician  who  is  under  the  in- 
fluence of  liquor.  The  same  is  true  of  business  men  in  re- 
gard to  their  legal  interests.  They  insist  upon  having 
sober  attorneys ;  they  want  the  counsel  of  a  sober  man.  So 
in  every  department.  On  the  railways  it  is  absolutely  es- 
sential that  the  engineer,  that  the  conductor,  the  train  de- 
spatcher  and  every  other  employe,  in  whose  hands  are  the 
lives  of  men,  should  be  temperate.  The  consequence  is  that 
under  the  law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  intemperate 
are  slowly  but  surely  going  to  the  wall;  they  are  slowly 
but  surely  being  driven  out  of  employments  of  trust  and 
importance.  As  we  rise  in  the  scale  of  civilization  we  con- 
tinually demand  better  and  better  service.  We  are  continu- 
ally insisting  upon  better  habits,  upon  a  higher  standard  ot 
integrity,  of  fidelity.  These  are  the  causes,  in  my  judgment, 
that  are  working  together  in  the  direction  of  true  temper- 
ance. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  the  people  can  be  made  to  do 
without  a  stimulant  ? 

Answer.  The  history  of  the  world  shows  that  all  men 
who  have  advanced  one  step  beyond  utter  barbarism  have 
used  some  kind  of  stimulant.  Man  has  sought  for  it  in 
every  direction.  Every  savage  loves  it.  Everything  has 
been  tried.  Opium  has  been  used  by  many  hundreds  of 
millions.     Hasheesh  has  filled  countless  brains  with  chaotic 


406  INTERVIEWS. 

dreams,  and  everywhere  that  civilization  has  gone  the  blood 
of  the  grape  ha.s  been  used.  Nothing  is  easier  now  to  ob- 
tain than  liquor.  In  one  bushel  of  corn  there  are  at  least 
five  gallons — four  can  easily  be  extracted.  All  starch,  all 
sugars,  can  be  changed  almost  instantly  into  alcohol.  Every 
grain  that  grows  has  in  it  the  intoxicating  principle,  and,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  nearly  all  of  the  corn,  wheat,  sugar  and 
starch  that  man  eats  is  changed  into  alcohol  in  his  stomach. 
Whether  man  can  be  compelled  to  do  without  a  stimulant  is 
a  question  that  I  am  unable  to  answer.  Of  one  thing  we 
are  certain  :  He  has  never  yet  been  compelled  to  do  with- 
out one.  The  tendency,  I  think,  of  modern  times  is 
toward  a  milder  stimulant  than  distilled  liquors.  Whisky 
and  brandies  are  too  strong ;  wine  and  beer  occupy  the  mid^ 
die  ground.     Wine  is  a  jfireside,  whisky  a  conflagration. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  far  better  if  the  Prohi- 
bitionists would  turn  their  attentiou  toward  distilled  spirits. 
If  they  were  willing  to  compromise,  the  probability  is  that 
they  would  have  public  opinion  on  their  side.  If  they 
would  say :  "  You  may  have  all  the  beer  and  all  the  wine 
and  cider  you  wish,  and  you  can  drink  them  when  and 
where  you  desire,  but  the  sale  of  distilled  spirits  shall  be 
prohibited,"  it  is  possible  that  this  could  be  carried  out  in 
good  faith  in  many  if  not  in  most  of  the  States — possibly  in 
all.  We  all  [know  that  the  effect  of  wine,  even  when  taken 
in  excess,  is  nothing  near  as  disastrous  as  the  effect  of  dis- 
tilled spirits.  Why  not  take  the  middle  ground  ?  The  wine 
drinkers  of  the  old  country  are  not  drunkards.  They  have 
been  drinking  wine  for  many  generations.  It  is  drank  by 
men,  women  and  children.  It  adds  to  the  sociability  of  the 
family.  It  does  not  separate  the  husband  from  the  rest,  it 
keeps  them  all  together,  and  in  that  view  is  rather  a  benefit 
than  an  injury.  Good  wine  can  be  raised  as  cheaply  here 
as  in  any  part  of  the  world.  In  nearly  every  part  of  our 
country  the  grape  grows  and  good  wine  can  be  made.     If 


INTERVIEWS.  407 

our  people  liad  a  taste  for  wine  they  would  lose  the  taste  for 
3$tronger  drink,  and  they  would  be  disgusted  with  the  sur- 
roundings of  the  stronger  drink. 

The  same  may  be  said  in  favor  of  beer.  As  long  as  the 
Prohibitionists  make  no  distinction  between  wine  and 
whisky,  between  beer  and  brandy,  just  so  long  they  will  be 
regarded  by  most  people  as  fanatics. 

The  Prohibitionists  cannot  expect  to  make  this  question 
a  Federal  one.  The  United  States  has  no  jurisdiction  of 
this  subject.  Congress  can  pass  no  laws  affecting  this 
question  that  could  have  any  force  except  in  such  parts  of 
our  country  as  are  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  States.  It 
is  a  question  for  the  States  and  not  for  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. The  Prohibitionists  are  simply  throwing  away  their 
votes.  Let  us  suppose  that  we  had  a  Prohibition  Congress 
and  a  Prohibition  President — what  steps  could  be  taken  to 
do  away  with  drinking  in  the  city  of  New  York  ?  What 
steps  could  be  taken  in  any  State  of  this  Union  ?  What 
could  by  any  possibility  be  done  ? 

A  few  years  ago  the  Prohibitionists  demanded  above  all 
things  that  the  tax  be  taken  from  distilled  spirits,  claiming 
at  that  time  that  such  a  tax  made  the  Government  a  partner 
in  vice. 

Now  when  the  Republican  party  proposes  under  certain 
circumstances  to  remove  that  tax,  the  Prohibitionists 
denounce  the  movement  as  one  in  favor  of  intemperance. 
We  have  also  been  told  that  the  tax  on  whisky  should  be 
kept  for  the  reason  that  it  increases  the  price,  and  that  an 
increased  price  tends  to  make  a  temperate  people ;  that  if 
the  tax  is  taken  off,  the  price  will  fall  and  the  whole  country 
start  on  the  downward  road  to  destruction.  Is  it  possible 
that  human  nature  stands  on  such  slippery  ground  ?  Is  it 
possible  that  our  civilization  to-day  rests  upon  the  price 
of  alcohol,  and  that,  should  the  price  be  reduced,  we  would 
all  go  down  together?    For  one,  I  cannot  entertain  such  a 


4C8  INTERVIEWS. 

humiliating  and  disgraceful  view  of  human  nature.  I  be- 
lieve that  man  is  destined  to  grow  greater,  grander  and 
nobler.  I  believe  that  no  matter  what  the  cost  of  alcohol 
may  be,  life  will  grow  too  valuable  to  be  thrown  away.  Men 
hold  life  according  to  its  value.  Men,  as  a  rule,  only  throw 
away  their  lives  when  they  are  not  worth  keeping.  When 
life  becomes  worth  living  it  will  be  carefully  preserved  and 
will  be  hoarded  to  the  last  grain  of  sand  that  falls  through 
the  glass  of  time. 

Questiojt.  What  is  the  reason  for  so  much  intemperance  ? 

Answer.  When  many  people  are  failures,  when  they  are 
distanced  in  the  race,  when  they  fall  behind,  when  they  give 
up,  when  they  lose  ambition,  when  they  finally  become  con- 
vinced that  they  are  worthless,  then  they  are  in  danger  of 
becoming  intemperate,  precisely  as  they  are  in  danger  of 
becoming  dishonest.  In  other  words,  having  failed  in  the 
race  of  life  on  the  highway,  they  endeavor  to  reach  the  goal 
by  going  across  lots,  by  crawling  through  the  grass.  Dis- 
guise this  matter  as  we  may,  all  people  are  not  successes, 
all  people  have  not  the  brain  or  the  muscle  or  the  moral 
stamina  necessary  to  succeed.  Some  fall  in  one  way,  some 
in  another ;  some  in  the  net  of  strong  drink,  some  in  the 
web  of  circumstances  and  others  in  a  thousand  ways,  and 
the  world  itself  cannot  grow  better  unless  the  unworthy  fall. 
The  law  is  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  that  is  to  say,  the 
destruction  of  the  unfit.  There  is  no  scheme  of  morals,  no 
scheme  of  government,  no  scheme  of  charity,  that  can  re- 
verse this  law.  If  it  could  be  reversed,  then  the  result  would 
be  the  survival  of  the  unfittest,  the  speedy  end  of  which 
would  be  the  extinction  of  the  human  race. 

Temperance  men  say  that  it  is  wise,  in  so  far  as  possible, 
to  remove  temptation  from  our  fellow-men. 

Let  us  look  at  this  in  regard  to  other  matters.  How  can 
we  do  away  with  larceny?  We  cannot  remove  propeny. 
We  cannot  destroy  the  money  of  the  world  to  keep  people 


INTERVIEWS.  409 

from  stealing  some  of  it.  In  other  words,  we  cannot  afford 
to  make  the  world  valueless  to  prevent  larceny.  All 
strength  by  which  temptation  is  resisted  must  come  from 
the  inside.  Virtue  does  not  depend  upon  the  obstacles  to 
be  overcome;  virtue  depends  upon  what  is  inside  of  the 
man.  A  man  is  not  honest  because  the  safe  of  the  bank  is 
perfectly  secure.  Upon  the  honest  man  the  condition  of 
the  safe  has  no  effect.  We  will  never  succeed  in  raising 
great  and  splendid  people  by  keeping  them  out  of  tempta- 
tion. Great  people  withstand  temptation.  Great  people 
have  what  may  be  called  moral  muscle,  moral  force.  They 
are  poised  within  themselves.  They  understand  their  re- 
lations to  the  world.  The  best  possible  foundation  for 
honest}^  is  the  intellectual  perception  that  dishonesty  can, 
under  no  circumstances,  be  a  good  investment — that 
larcency  is  not  only  wicked,  but  foolish — not  only 
criminal,  but  stupid — that  crimes  are  committed  only  by 
fools. 

On  every  hand  there  is  what  is  called  temptation.  Every 
man  has  the  opportunity  of  doing  wrong.  Every  man,  in 
this  country,  has  the  opportunity  of  drinking  too  much, 
has  the  opportunity  of  acquiring  the  opium  habit,  has  the 
opportunity  of  taking  morphine  every  day — in  other  words, 
has  the  opportunity  of  destroying  himself.  How  are  they 
to  be  prevented  ?  Most  of  them  are  prevented — at  least  in 
a  reasonable  degree — and  they  are  prevented  by  their  in- 
telligence, by  their  surroundings,  by  their  education,  by 
their  objects  and  aims  in  life,  by  the  people  they  love,  by 
the  people  who  love  them. 

No  one  will  deny  the  evils  of  intemperance,  and  it  is 
hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  people  who  regard  only  one 
side — who  think  of  the  impoverished  and  wretched,  of  wives 
and  children  in  want,  of  desolate  homes — become  the  advo- 
cates of  absolute  prohibition.  At  the  same  time,  there  is  a 
philosophic   side,  and  the  question  is  whether  more  good 


4IO  INTERVIEWS. 

cannot  be  done  by  moral  influence,  by  example,  by  educa/> 
tion,  by  the  gradual  civilization  of  our  fellow-men,  than  in 
any  other  possible  way.  The  greatest  things  are  accom- 
plished by  indirection.  In  this  way  the  idea  of  force,  of 
slavery,  is  avoided.  The  person  influenced  does  not  feel 
that  he  has  been  trampled  upon,  does  not  regard  himself  as 
a  victim — he  feels  rather  as  a  pupil,  as  one  who  receives  a 
benefit,  whose  mind  has  been  enlarged,  whose  life  has  been 
enriched — whereas  the  direct  way  of  "Thou  shalt  not"  pro- 
duces an  antagonism — in  other  words,  produces  the  natural 
result  of  "  I  will." 

By  removing  one  temptation  you  add  strength  to  others. 
By  depriving  a  man  of  one  stimulant,  as  a  rule,  you  drive 
him  to  another,  and  the  other  may  be  far  worse  than  the 
one  from  which  he  has  been  driven.  We  have  hundreds  of 
laws  making  certain  things  misdemeanors,  which  are  natu- 
rally right. 

Thousands  of  people,  honest  in  most  directions,  delight  in 
outwitting  the  Government — derive  absolute  pleasure  from 
getting  in  a  few  clothes  and  gloves  and  shawls  without 
the  payment  of  duty.  Thousands  of  people  buy  things  in 
Europe  for  which  they  pay  more  than  they  would  for  the 
same  things  in  America,  and  then  exercise  their  ingenuity 
in  slipping  them  through  the  custom-house. 

A  law  to  have  real  force  must  spring  from  the  nature  of 
things,  and  the  justice  of  this  law  must  be  generally  per- 
ceived, otherwise  it  will  be  evaded. 

The  temperance  people  themselves  are  playing  into  the 
hands  of  the  very  party  that  would  refuse  to  count  their  votes. 
Allow  the  Democrats  to  remain  in  power,  allow  the  Demo- 
crats to  be  controlled  by  the  South,  and  a  large  majority 
might  be  in  favor  of  temperance  legislation,  and  yet  the 
votes  would  remain  uncounted.  The  party  of  reform  has 
a  great  interest  in  honest  elections,  and  honest  elections 
must  first  be  obtained  as  the  foundation  of  reform.     The 


INTERVIEWS.  41 ! 

Prohibitionists  can  take  their  choice  between  these  parties. 
Would  it  not  be  far  better  for  the  Prohibitionists  to  say  : 
"We  will  vote  for  temperance  men:  we  will  stand  with  the 
party  that  is  the  nearest  in  favor  of  what  we  deem  to  be  the 
right "  ?  The  other  course  is  more  nearly  allied  to  spite  than  to 
principle.  They  should  also  take  into  consideration  that 
other  people  are  as  honest  as  they ;  that  others  disbelieve  in 
prohibition  as  honestly  as  they  believe  in  it,  and  that  other 
people  cannot  leave  their  principles  to  vote  for  prohibition  ; 
and  they  must  remember,  that  these  other  people  are  in  the 
majority. 

Mr.  Fisk  knows  that  he  cannot  be  elected  President — 
knows  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  carry  any  State  in 
the  Union.  He  also  knows  that  in  nearly  every  State  in  the 
Union — probably  in  all — a  majority  of  the  people  believe 
in  stimulants.  Why  not  work  with  this  great  and  en- 
lightened majority?  Why  rush  to  the  extreme  for  the 
purpose  not  only  of  making  yourself  useless  but  hurt- 
ful? 

No  man  in  the  world  is  more  opposed  to  intemperance 
than  I  am.  No  man  in  the  world  feels  more  keenly  the 
evils  and  the  agony  produced  by  the  crime  of  drunkenness. 
And  yet  I  would  not  be  willing  to  sacrifice  liberty,  indi- 
viduality, and  the  glory  and  greatness  of  individual  free- 
dom, to  do  away  with  all  the  evils  of  intemperance.  In 
other  words,  I  believe  that  slavery,  oppression  and  sup- 
pression would  crowd  humanity  into  a  thousand  deformities, 
the  result  of  which  would  be  a  thousand  times  more  disas- 
trous to  the  well-being  of  man.  I  do  not  believe  in  the 
slave  virtues,  in  the  monotony  of  tyranny,  in  the  respectabil- 
ity produced  by  force.  I  admire  the  men  who  have  grown  in 
the  atmosphere  of  liberty,  who  have  the  pose  of  independ- 
ence, the  virtues  of  strength,  of  heroism,  and  in  whose 
hearts  is  the  magnanimity,  the  tenderness,  and  the  courage 

born  of  victory. — New  York  fFi?r/</.  October  21, 1888. 


ROBERT  ELSMERE. 

Why  do  people  read  a  book  like  **  Robert  Elsmere," 
and  why  do  they  take  any  interest  in  it?  Simply  be- 
cause they  are  not  satisfied  with  the  religion  of  our  day. 
The  civilized  world  has  outgrown  the  greater  part  of  the 
Christian  creed.  Civilized  people  have  lost  their  belief  in  the 
reforming  power  of  punishment.  They  find  that  whips 
and  imprisonment  have  but  little  influence  for  good.  The 
truth  has  dawned  upon  their  minds  that  eternal  punish- 
ment is  infinite  cruelty — that  it  can  serve  no  good  purpose, 
and  that  the  eternity  of  hell  makes  heaven  impossible. 
That  there  can  be  in  this  universe  no  perfectly  happy  place 
while  there  is  a  perfectly  miserable  place — that  no  infinite 
being  can  be  good  who  knowingly  and,  as  one  may  say, 
willfully  created  myriads  of  human  beings,  knowing  that 
they  would  be  eternally  miserable.  In  other  words,  the 
civilized  man  is  greater,  tenderer,  nobler,  nearer  just  than 
the  old  idea  of  God.  The  ideal  of  a  few  thousand  years 
ago  is  far  below  the  real  of  to-day.  No  good  man  now 
would  do  what  Jehovah  is  said  to  have  done  four  thousand 
years  ago,  and  no  civilized  human  being  would  now  do 
what,  according  to  the  Christian  religion,  Christ  threatens 
to  do  at  the  day  of  judgment. 

Question.  Has  the  Christian  religion  changed  in  theory  of 
late  years,  Colonel  IngersoU  ? 

Answer.  A  few  years  ago  the  Deists  denied  the  inspiration 
of  the  Bible  on  account  of  its  cruelty.  At  the  same  time 
they  worshiped  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the  God 
of  Nature.  Now  we  are  convinced  that  Nature  is  as  cruel 
as  the  Bible  ;  so  that,  if  the  God  of  Nature  did  not  write  the 
Bible,  this  God  at  least  has  caused  earthquakes  and  pesti- 
lence and  famine,  and  this  God  has  allowed  millions  of  his 

children  to  destroy  one  another.      So  that  now  we  have 

(Am 


INTERVIEWS.  413 

arrived  at  the  question — not  as  to  whether  the  Bible  is  in- 
spired and  not  as  to  whether  Jehovah  is  the  real  God,  but 
whether  there  is  a  God  or  not.  The  intelligence  of  Chris- 
tendom to-day  does  not  believe  in  an  inspired  religion  any 
more  than  it  believes  in  an  inspired  art  or  an  inspired  litera- 
ture. If  there  be  an  infinite  God,  inspiration  in  some  partic- 1 
ular  regard  would  be  a  patch — it  would  be  the  puttying  of 
a  crack,  the  hiding  of  a  defect — in  other  words,  it  would 
show  that  the  general  plan  was  defective. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  any  religion  adequate  ? 

Answer.  A  good  man,  living  in  England,  drawing  a  cer- 
tain salary  for  reading  certain  prayers  on  stated  occasions, 
for  making  a  few  remarks  on  the  subject  of  religion,  put- 
ting on  clothes  of  a  certain  cut,  wearing  a  gown  with  cer- 
tain frills  and  flounces  starched  in  an  orthodox  manner,  and 
then  looking  about  him  at  the  suffering  and  agony  of  the 
world,  would  not  feel  satisfied  that  he  was  doing  anything 
of  value  for  the  human  race.  In  the  first  place,  he  would 
deplore  his  own  weakness,  his  own  poverty,  his  inability  to 
help  his  fellow-men.  He  would  long  every  moment  for 
wealth,  that  he  might  feed  the  hungry  and  clothe  the  naked 
— for  knowledge,  for  miraculous  power,  that  he  might  heal 
the  sick  and  the  lame  and  that  he  might  give  to  the  deform- 
ed the  beauty  of  proportion.  He  would  begin  to  wonder 
how  a  being  of  infinite  goodness  and  infinite  power  could 
allow  his  children  to  die,  to  suffer,  to  be  deformed  by 
necessity,  by  povertj^  to  be  tempted  beyond  resistance  ;  how 
he  could  allow  the  few  to  live  in  luxury,  and  the  many  in 
poverty  and  want,  and  the  more  he  wondered  the  more  use- 
less and  ironical  would  seem  to  himself  his  sermons  and  his 
prayers.  Such  a  man  is  driven  to  the  conclusion  that 
religion  accomplishes  but  little — that  it  creates  as  much 
want  as  it  alleviates,  and  that  it  burdens  the  world  with 
parasites.  Such  a  man  would  be  forced  to  think  of  the 
millions    wasted    in    superstition.     In    other    words,    the 


414  INTERVIEWS. 

inadequacy,  the  uselessness  of  religion  would  be  forced 
upon  his  mind.  He  would  ask  himself  the  question  :  "  Is  it 
possible  that  this  is  a  divine  institution  ?  Is  this  all  that 
man  can  do  with  the  assistance  of  God  ?     Is  this  the  best  ?  " 

Question.  That  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  question,  is  it  not, 
Colonel  Ingersoll  ? 

A?iswer.  The  moment  a  man  reaches  the  point  where  he 
asks  himself  this  question  he  has  ceased  to  be  an  orthodox 
Christian.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  in  some  other  world 
justice  will  be  done.  If  God  allows  injustice  to  triumph 
here,  why  not  there  ? 

Robert  Elsmere  stands  in  the  dawn  of  philosophy.  There 
is  hardly  light  enough  for  him  to  see  clearly ;  but  there  is 
so  much  light  that  the  stars  in  the  night  of  superstition  arQ 
obscured. 

Questio7i.  You  do  not  deny  that  a  religious  belief  is  a 
comfort  ? 

Answer.  There  is  one  thing  that  it  is  impossible  for  me 
to  comprehend.  Why  should  any  one,  when  convinced 
that  Christianity  is  a  superstition,  have  or  feel  a  sense  of 
loss?  Certainly  a  man  acquainted  with  England,  with 
London,  having  at  the  same  time  something  like  a  heart, 
must  feel  overwhelmed  by  the  failure  of  what  is  known  as 
Christianity.  Hundreds  of  thousands  exist  there  without 
decent  food,  dwelling  in  tenements,  clothed  with  rags,  famil- 
iar with  every  form  of  vulgar  vice,  where  the  honest  poor 
eat  the  crust  that  the  vicious  throw  away.  When  this  man 
of  intelligence,  of  heart,  visits  the  courts ;  when  he  finds 
human  liberty  a  thing  treated  as  of  no  value,  and  when  he 
hears  the  judge  sentencing  girls  and  boys  to  the  penitenti- 
ary—knowing that  a  stain  is  being  put  upon  them  that  all 
the  tears  of  all  the  coming  years  can  never  wash  away, — 
knowing,  too,  and  feeling  that  this  is  done  without  the 
slightest  regret,  without  the  slightest  sympathy,  as  a  mere 
matter  of  form,  and  that  the  judge  puts  this  brand  of  infamy 


INTERVIEWS.  415 

upon  tlie  forehead  of  the  convict  just  as  cheerfully  as  a 
Mexican  brands  his  cattle ;  and  when  this  man  of  intelli- 
gence and  heart  knows  that  these  poor  people  are  simply 
the  victims  of  society,  the  unfortunates  who  stumble  and 
over  whose  bodies  rolls  the  Juggernaut — he  knows  that  there 
is,  or  at  least  appears  to  be,  no  power  above  or  below  work- 
ing for  righteousness — that  from  the  heavens  is  stretched 
no  protecting  hand.  And  when  a  man  of  intelligence  and 
heart  in  England  visits  the  workhouse,  the  last  resting 
place  of  honest  labor;  when  he  thinks  that  the  young  man, 
without  any  great  intelligence,  but  with  a  good  constitution, 
starts  in  the  morning  of  his  life  for  the  workhouse,  and  that 
it  is  impossible  for  the  laboring  man,  one  who  simply  has 
his  muscle,  to  save  anything ;  that  health  is  not  able  to  lay 
anything  by  for  the  days  of  disease — when  the  man  of  intel- 
ligence and  heart  sees  all  this,  he  is  compelled  to  say  that 
the  civilization  of  to-day,  the  religion  of  to-day,  the  charity 
of  to-day — no  matter  how  much  of  good  there  may  be 
behind  them  or  in  them,  are  failures. 

A  few  years  ago  people  were  satisfied  when  the  minister 
said:  "  All  this  will  be  made  even  in  another  world  ;  a  crust- 
eater  here  will  sit  at  the  head  of  the  banquet  there,  and  the 
king  here  will  beg  for  the  crumbs  that  fall  from  the  table 
there."  When  this  was  said,  the  poor  man  hoped  and  the 
king  laughed.  A  few  years  ago  the  church  said  to  the 
slave  :  "  You  will  be  free  in  another  world  and  your  freedom 
will  be  made  glorious  by  the  perpetual  spectacle  of  your 
master  in  hell."  But  the  people — that  is,  many  of  the  peo- 
ple— are  no  longer  deceived  by  what  once  were  considered 
fine  phrases.  They  have  suffered  so  much  that  they  no 
longer  wish  to  see  others  suffer  and  no  longer  think  of  the 
suffering  of  others  as  a  source  of  joy  to  themselves.  The 
poor  see  that  the  eternal  starvation  of  kings  and  queens  in 
another  world  will  be  no  compensation  for  what  they  have 
suff-ered  here.    The  old  religions  appear  vulgar  and  the 


4l6  INTERVIEWS. 

ideas  of  rewards  and  punishments  are  only  such  as  would 
satisfy  a  cannibal  chief  or  one  of  his  favorites. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  Christian  religion  has  made 
the  world  better  ? 

Answer.  For  many  centuries  there  has  been  preached 
and  taught  in  an  almost  infinite  number  of  ways  a  super- 
natural religion.  During  all  this  time  the  world  has  been 
in  the  care  of  the  Infinite,  and  yet  every  imaginable  vice 
has  flourished,  every  imaginable  pang  has  been  suffered, 
and  every  injustice  has  been  done.  During  all  these  years 
the  priests  have  enslaved  the  minds,  and  the  kings  the 
bodies,  of  men.  The  priests  did  what  they  did  in  the  name 
of  God,  and  the  kings  appeal  to  the  same  source  of 
authority.  Man  suffered  as  long  as  he  could.  Revolution, 
reformation,  was  simply  a  re-action,  a  cry  from  the  poor 
wretch  that  was  between  the  upper  and  the  nether  mill- 
stone. The  liberty  of  man  has  increased  just  in  the 
proportion  that  the  authority  of  the  gods  has  decreased.  In 
other  words,  the  wants  of  man,  instead  of  the  wishes  of 
God,  have  inaugurated  what  we  call  progress,  and  there 
is  this  difference :  Theology  is  based  upon  the  narrowest 
and  intensest  form  of  selfishness.  Of  course,  the  theologian 
knows,  the  Christian  knows,  that  he  can  do  nothing  for 
God ;  consequently  all  that  he  does  must  be  and  is  for  him- 
self, his  object  being  to  win  the  approbation  of  this  God,  to 
the  end  that  he  may  become  a  favorite.  On  the  other  side, 
men  touched  not  only  by  their  own  misfortunes,  but  by 
the  misfortunes  of  others,  are  moved  not  simply  by  selfish- 
ness, but  by  a  splendid  sympathy  with  their  fellow-men. 

Question.  Christianity  certainly  fosters  charity  ? 

Answer.  Nothing  is  more  cruel  than  orthodox  theology, 
nothing  more  heartless  than  a  charitable  institution.  For 
instance,  in  England,  think  for  a  moment  of  the  manner  in 
which  charities  are  distributed,  the  way  in  which  the  crust 
is  flung  at  Lazarus.     If  that  parable  could  be  now  retold,  the 


INTERVIEWS.  417 

dogs  would  bite  him.  The  same  is  true  in  this  country. 
The  institution  has  nothing  but  contempt  for  the  one  it 
relieves.  The  people  in  charge  regard  the  pauper  as  one 
who  has  wrecked  himself.  They  feel  very  much  as  a  man 
would  feel  rescuing  from  the  water  some  hare-brained 
wretch  who  had  endeavored  to  swim  the  rapids  of  Niagara — 
the  moment  they  reach  him  they  begin  to  upbraid  him  for 
being  such  a  fool.  This  course  makes  charity  a  hypocrite, 
with  every  pauper  for  its  enemy. 

Mrs.  Ward  compelled  Robert  Elsmere  to  perceive,  in 
some  slight  degree,  the  failure  of  Christianity  to  do  away 
with  vice  and  suffering,  with  poverty  and  crime.  We 
know  that  the  rich  care  but  little  for  the  poor.  No  matter 
how  religious  the  rich  may  be,  the  sufferings  of  their  fel- 
lows have  but  little  effect  upon  them.  We  are  also  be- 
ginning to  see  that  what  is  called  charity  will  never  redeem 
this  world. 

The  poor  man  willing  to  work,  eager  to  main- 
tain his  independence,  knows  that  there  is  something 
higher  than  charity — that  is  to  say,  justice.  He  finds 
that  many  years  before  he  was  born  his  countr}^  was 
divided  out  between  certain  successful  robbers,  flatterers, 
cringers  and  crawlers,  and  that  in  consequence  of  such 
division  not  only  himself,  but  a  large  majority  of  his  fel- 
low-men are  tenants,  renters,  occupying  the  surface  of  the 
earth  onlj^  at  the  pleasure  of  others.  He  finds,  too,  that 
these  people  who  have  done  nothing  and  who  do  nothing, 
have  everything,  and  that  those  who  do  everything  have 
but  little.  He  finds  that  idleness  has  the  money  and  that 
the  toilers  are  compelled  to  bow  to  the  idlers.  He  finds 
also  that  the  young  men  of  genius  are  bribed  by  social 
distinctions — uncoUvSciously  it  may  be — but  still  bribed 
in  a  thousand  ways.  He  finds  that  the  church  is  a  kind 
of  waste-basket  into  which  are  thrown  the  younger  sons 
of  titled  idleness. 


41 8  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  that  society  in  general  has 
been  made  better  by  religious  influences  ? 

Answer.  Society  is  corrupted  because  the  laurels,  the  titles, 
are  in  the  keeping  and  within  the  gift  of  the  corrupters. 
Christianity  is  not  an  enemy  of  this  system — it  is  in  har- 
mony with  it.  Christianity  reveals  to  us  a  universe  pre- 
sided over  by  an  infinite  autocrat — a  universe  without  repub- 
licanism, without  democracy — a  universe  where  all  power 
comes  from  one  and  the  same  source,  and  where  everyone 
using  authority  is  accountable,  not  to  the  people,  but  to 
this  supposed  source  of  authority.  Kings  reign  by  divine 
right.  Priests  are  ordained  in  a  divinely  appointed  way — 
they  do  not  get  their  office  from  man.  Man  is  their  serv- 
ant, not  their  master. 

In  the  story  of  Robert  Elsmere  all  there  is  of  Christianity 
is  left  except  the  miraculous.  Theism  remains,  and 
the  idea  of  a  protecting  Providence  is  left,  together 
with  a  belief  in  the  immeasureable  superiority  of  Jesus 
Christ.  That  is  to  say,  the  miracles  are  discarded 
for  lack  of  evidence,  and  only  for  lack  of  evidence  ;  not  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  impossible,  not  on  the  ground 
that  they  impeach  and  deu}^  the  integrity  of  cause  and 
effect,  not  on  the  ground  that  they  contradict  the  self-evi- 
dent proposition  that  an  effect  must  have  an  efficient  cause, 
but  like  the  Scotch  verdict,  "  not  proven."  It  is  an  effort  to 
save  and  keep  in  repair  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisition 
for  the  sake  of  the  beauty  of  the  vines  that  have  overrun 
them.  Many  people  imagine  that  falsehoods  may  be- 
come respectable  on  account  of  age,  that  a  certain  rever- 
ence goes  with  antiquity,  and  that  if  a  mistake  is  covered 
with  the  moss  of  sentiment  it  is  altogether  more  credible 
than  a  parvenu  fact.  They  endeavor  to  introduce  the 
idea  of  aristocracy  into  the  world  of  thought,  believing, 
and  honestly  believing,  that  a  falsehood  long  believed  is 
far  superior  to  a  truth  that  is  generally  denied. 


INTERVIEWS.  419 

Question.  If  Robert  Elsmere's  views  were  commonly 
adopted  what  would  be  the  effect  ? 

Answer.  The  new  religion  of  Elsmere  is,  after  all,  only 
a  system  of  outdoor  relief,  an  effort  to  get  successful 
piracy  to  give  up  a  larger  per  cent,  for  the  relief  of  its 
victims.  The  abolition  of  the  system  is  not  dreamed  of. 
A  civilized  minority  could  not  by  any  possibility  be 
happy  while  a  majority  of  the  world  were  miserable.  A 
civilized  majority  could  not  be  happy  while  a  minority 
were  miserable.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  civilized  world 
could  not  be  happy  while  one  man  was  really  miserable.  At 
the  foundation  of  civilization  is  justice — that  is  to  say, 
the  giving  of  an  equal  opportunit}^  to  all  the  children  of 
men.  Secondly,  there  can  be  no  civilization  in  the  highest 
sense  until  sympathy  becomes  universal.  We  must  have 
a  new  definition  for  success.  We  must  have  new  ideals. 
The  man  who  succeeds  in  amassing  wealth,  who  gathers 
money  for  himself,  is  not  a  success.  It  is  an  exceedingly 
low  ambition  to  be  rich  to  excite  the  envy  of  others,  or 
for  the  sake  of  the  vulgar  power  it  gives  to  triumph  over 
others.  Such  men  are  failures.  So  the  man  who  wins 
fame,  position,  power,  and  wins  these  for  the  sake  of  him- 
self, and  wields  this  power  not  for  the  elevation  of  his  fel- 
low-men, but  simply  to  control,  is  a  miserable  failure. 
He  may  dispense  thousands  of  millions  in  charity,  and  his 
charity  may  be  prompted  by  the  meanest  part  of  his  nature 
— using  it  simply  as  a  bait  to  catch  more  fish  and  to  pre- 
vent the  rising  tide  of  indignation  that  might  overwhelm 
him.  Men  who  steal  millions  and  then  give  a  small  per- 
centage to  the  Lord  to  gain  the  praise  of  the  clergy  and  to 
bring  the  salvation  of  their  souls  within  the  possibilities 
of  imagination,  are  all  failures. 

Robert  Elsmere  gains  our  affection  and  our  applause  to  the 
extent  that  he  gives  up  what  are  known  as  orthodox  views, 
and  his  wife  Catherine  retains  our  respect  in  the  proportion 


420  INTERVIEWS. 

that  she  lives  the  doctrine  that  Elsmere  preaches.  By 
doing  what  she  believes  to  be  right,  she  gains  our  forgive- 
ness for  her  creed.  One  is  astonished  that  she  can  be  as 
good  as  she  is,  believing  as  she  does.  The  utmost  stretch 
of  our  intellectual  charity  is  to  allow  the  old  wine  to  be 
put  in  a  new  bottle,  and  yet  she  regrets  the  absence  of  the 
old  bottle — she  really  believes  that  the  bottle  is  the  im- 
portant thing — that  the  wine  is  but  a  secondary  considera- 
tion. She  misses  the  label,  and  not  having  perfect  confi- 
dence in  her  own  taste,  she  does  not  feel  quite  sure  that 
the  wine  is  genuine. 

Question.  What, on  the  whole,  is  your  judgment  of  the 
book  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  book  conservative.  It  is  an  effort  to 
save  something — a  few  shreds  and  patches  and  ravelings 
— from  the  wreck.  Theism  is  difficult  to  maintain.  Why 
should  we  expect  an  infinite  Being  to  do  better  in  another 
world  than  he  has  done  and  is  doing  in  this  ?  If  he  allows 
the  innocent  to  suffer  here,  w^hy  not  there  ?  If  he  allows 
rascality  to  succeed  in  this  world,  why  not  in  the  next? 
To  believe  in  God  and  to  deny  his  personality  is  an  ex- 
ceedingly vague  foundation  for  a  consolation.  If  you  in- 
sist on  his  personality  and  power,  then  it  is  impossible  to 
account  for  what  happens.  Why  should  an  infinite  God 
allow  some  of  his  children  to  enslave  others  ?  Why  should 
he  allow  a  child  of  his  to  burn  another  child  of  his,  under 
the  impression  that  such  a  sacrifice  was  pleasing  to  him  ? 

Unitarianism  lacks  the  motive  power.  Orthodox  people 
who  insist  that  nearly  everybody  is  going  to  hell,  and  that 
it  is  their  duty  to  do  what  little  they  can  to  save  their  souls, 
have  what  you  might  call  a  spur  to  action.  We  can  im- 
agine a  philanthropic  man  engaged  in  the  business  of 
throwing  ropes  to  persons  about  to  go  over  the  falls  of 
Niagara,  but  we  can  hardly  think  of  his  carrying  on  the 
business  after  becoming  convinced  that  there  are  no  falls. 


INTERVIEWS.  421 

or  that  people  go  over  them  in  perfect  safety.  In  this 
country  the  question  has  come  up  whether  all  the  heathen 
are  bound  to  be  damned  unless  they  believe  in  the  gospel. 
Many  admit  that  the  heathen  will  be  saved  if  they  are 
good  people,  and  that  they  will  not  be  damned  for  not 
believing  something  that  they  never  heard.  The  really 
orthodox  people — that  is  to  say,  the  missionaries — instantly 
see  that  this  doctrine  destroys  their  business.  They  take 
the  ground  that  there  is  but  one  .way  to  be  saved — you 
must  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — and  they  are  will- 
ing to  admit,  and  cheerfully  to  admit,  that  the  heathen  for 
man}^  generations  have  gone  in  an  unbroken  column  down 
to  eternal  wrath.  And  they  not  only  admit  this,  but  insist 
upon  it,  to  the  end  that  subscriptions  may  not  cease. 
With  them  salary  and  salvation  are  convertible  terms. 

The  tone  of  this  book  is  not  of  the  highest.  Too  much 
stress  is  laid  upon  social  advantages — too  much  respect 
for  fashionable  folly  and  for  ancient  absurdity.  It  is 
hard  for  me  to  appreciate  the  feelings  of  one  who  thinks  it 
diiSicult  to  give  up  the  consolations  of  the  gospel.  What 
are  the  consolations  of  the  Church  of  England  ?  It  is  a 
religion  imposed  upon  the  people  b}^  authority.  It  is  the 
gospel  at  the  mouth  of  a  cannon,  at  the  point  of  a  bayonet, 
enforced  by  all  authority,  from  the  beadle  to  the  Queen.  It 
is  a  parasite  living  upon  tithes — these  tithes  being  collected 
by  the  army  and  navy.  It  produces  nothing — is  simply  a 
beggar— or  rather  an  aggregation  of  beggars.  It  teaches 
nothing  of  importance.  It  discovers  nothing.  It  is  under 
obligation  not  to  investigate.  It  has  agreed  to  remain 
stationary  not  only,  but  to  resist  all  innovation.  Accord- 
ing to  the  creed  of  this  church,  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  human  race  is  destined  to  suffer  eternal  pain.  This 
does  not  interfere  with  the  quiet,  with  the  serenity  and  re- 
pose of  the  average  clergj^man.  They  put  on  their  gowns, 
they  read  the  service,  they  repeat  the  creed  and  feel  that 


422  INTERVIEWS. 

their  duty  has  been  done.  How  any  one  can  feel  that  he  is 
giving  up  something  of  value  when  he  finds  that  the 
Episcopal  creed  is  untrue  is  beyond  my  imagination.  I 
should  think  that  every  good  man  and  woman  would  over- 
flow with  joy,  that  every  heart  would  burst  into  countless 
blossoms  the  moment  the  falsity  of  the  Episcopal  creed  was 
established. 

Christianity  is  the  most  heartless  of  all  religions — the 
most  unforgiving,  the  most  revengeful.  According  to  the 
Episcopalian  belief,  God  becomes  the  eternal  prosecutor  of 
his  own  children.  I  know  of  no  creed  believed  by  any  tribe, 
not  excepting  the  tribes  where  cannibalism  is  practiced, 
that  is  more  heartless,  more  inhuman  than  this.  To  find 
that  the  creed  is  false  is  like  being  roused  from  a  frightful 
dream,  in  which  hundreds  of  serpents  are  coiled  about  you, 
in  which  their  eyes,  gleaming  w4th  hatred,  are  fixed  on 
you,  and  finding  the  world  bathed  in  sunshine  and  the 
songs  of  birds  in  your  ears  and  those  you  love  about  you. 

^New  York  World,  November  18,  1888. 

WORKING  GIRLS. 

Question.  What  is  3^our  opinion  of  the  work  undertaken 
by  the  World  in  behalf  of  the  city  slave  girls  ? 

Answer.  I  know  of  nothing  better  for  a  great  journal  to  do. 
The  average  girl  is  so  helpless,  and  the  greed  of  the  employer 
is  such,  that  unless  some  newspaper  or  some  person  of  great 
influence  comes  to  her  assistance,  she  is  liable  not  simply 
to  be  imposed  upon,  but  to  be  made  a  slave.  Girls,  as  a 
rule,  are  so  anxious  to  please,  so  willing  to  work,  that  they 
bear  almost  every  hardship  without  complaint.  Nothing 
is  more  terrible  than  to  see  the  rich  living  on  the  work  of 
the  poor.  One  can  hardly  imagine  the  utter  heartlessness 
of  a  man  who  stands  between  the  wholesale  manufacturer 
and  the  wretched  women  who  make  their  living — or  rather, 
retard  their  death — by  the  needle.     How  a  human  being 


INTERVIEY.'S.  423 

ean  consent  to  live  on  this  profit,  stolen  from  poverty,  is 
t)eyond  my  imagination.  These  men,  when  known,  will  be 
regarded  as  hyenas  and  jackals.  They  are  like  the  wild 
beasts  which  follow  herds  of  cattle  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
vouring those  that  are  injured  or  those  that  have  fallen  by 
the  wayside  from  weakness. 

Question.  What  effect  has  unlimited  immigration  on  the 
wages  of  women  ? 

Answer.  If  our  country  were  overpopulated,  the  effect  of 
immigration  would  be  to  lessen  wages,  for  the  reason  that 
the  working  people  of  Europe  are  used  to  lower  wages,  and 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  practicing  an  economy  unknown 
to  us.  But  this  country  is  not  overpopulated.  There  is 
plenty  of  room  for  several  hundred  millions  more.  Wages, 
however,  are  too  low  in  the  United  States.  The  general 
tendency  is  to  leave  the  question  of  labor  to  what  is  called 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand.  My  hope  is  that  in  time 
we  shall  become  civilized  enough  to  know  that  there  is  a 
higher  law,  or  rather  a  higher  meaning  in  the  law  of  sup- 
ply and  demand,  than  is  now  perceived.  Year  after  j^ear 
what  are  called  the  necessaries  of  life  increase.  Many 
things  now  regarded  as  necessaries  were  formerly  looked 
upon  as  luxuries.  So,  as  man  becomes  civilized,  he  in- 
creases what  may  be  called  the  necessities  of  his  life. 
When  perfectly  civilized,  one  of  the  necessities  of  his  life 
will  be  that  the  lives  of  others  shall  be  of  some  value  to 
them.  A  good  man  is  not  happy  so  long  as  he  knows  that 
other  good  men  and  women  suffer  for  raiment  and  for  food, 
and  have  no  roof  but  the  sky,  no  home  but  the  highway. 
Consequently  what  is  called  the  law  of  supply  and  demand 
will  then  have  a  much  larger  meaning. 

In  nature  everything  lives  upon  something  else.  Life 
feeds  upon  life.  Something  is  lying  in  wait  for  something 
else,  and  even  the  victim  is  weaving  a  web  or  crouching 
for  some  other  victim,  and  the  other  victim  is  in  the  same 


424  INTERVIEWS. 

business — watching  for  something  else.  The  same  h  ^ttre 
in  the  human  world — people  are  living  on  each  other;  the 
cunning  obtain  the  property  of  the  simple ;  wealth  picks 
the  pockets  of  poverty ;  success  is  a  highwayman  leaping 
from  the  hedge.  The  rich  combine,  the  poor  are  unorgan- 
ized, without  the  means  to  act  in  concert,  and  for  that  rea- 
son become  the  prey  of  combinations  and  trusts.  The 
great  questions  are :  Will  man  ever  be  sufficiently  civilized 
to  be  honest  ?  Will  the  time  ever  come  when  it  can  truth- 
fully be  said  that  right  is  might  ?  The  lives  of  millions  of 
people  are  not  worth  living,  because  of  their  ignorance 
and  povert}'-,  and  the  lives  of  millions  of  others  are  not 
worth  living,  on  account  of  their  wealth  and  selfishness. 
The  palace  without  justice,  without  charity,  is  as  terrible 
as  the  hovel  without  food. 

Question.  What  effect  has  the  woman's  suffrage  movement 
had  on  the  breadwinners  of  the  country  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  women  who  have  been  engaged  in 
the  struggle  for  equal  rights  have  done  good  for  women  in 
the  direction  of  obtaining  equal  wages  for  equal  work. 
There  has  also  been  for  many  years  a  tendency  among 
women  in  our  country  to  become  independent — a  desire  to 
make  their  own  living — to  win  their  own  bread.  So  many 
husbands  are  utterly  useless,  or  worse,  that  many  women 
hardly  feel  justified  in  depending  entirelj^  on  a  husband  for 
the  future.  They  feel  somewhat  safer  to  know  how  to  do 
something  and  earn  a  little  money  themselves.  If  men  were 
what  they  ought  to  be,  few  women  would  be  allowed  to  labor 
— that  is  to  say,  to  toil.  It  should  be  the  ambition  of  ever3' 
healthy  and  intelligent  man  to  take  care  of,  to  support,  to 
make  happy,  some  woman.  As  long  as  women  bear  the 
burdens  of  the  world,  the  human  race  can  never  attain  any- 
thing like  a  splendid  civilization.  There  will  be  no  great 
generation  of  men  until  there  has  been  a  great  generation 
of  women.     For  my  part,  I  am  glad  to  hear  this  question 


INTERVIEWS.  425 

discussed — glad  to  know  that  thousands  of  women  take 
some  interest  in  the  fortunes  and  in  the  misfortunes  of  their 
sisters. 

The  question  of  wages  for  women  is  a  thousand  times 
more  important  than  sending  missionaries  to  China  or  to 
India.  There  is  plenty  for  missionaries  to  do  here.  And 
by  missionaries  I  do  not  mean  gentlemen  and  ladies  who  dis- 
tribute tracts  or  quote  Scripture  to  people  out  of  work.  If 
we  are  to  better  the  condition  of  men  and  women  we  must 
change  their  surroundings.  The  tenement  house  breeds  a 
moral  pestilence.  There  can  be  in  these  houses  no  home, 
no  fireside,  no  family,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  privacy, 
no  walls  between  them  and  the  rest  of  the  world.  There  is 
no  sacredness,  no  feeling,  "this  is  ours." 

Question.  Might  not  the  rich  do  much  ? 

Answer.  It  would  be  hard  to  overestimate  the  good  that 
might  be  done  by  the  millionaires  if  they  would  turn  their 
attention  to  sending  thousands  and  thousands  into  the 
country  or  to  building  them  homes  miles  from  the  city, 
where  they  could  have  something  like  privacy,  where  the 
family  relations  could  be  kept  with  some  sacredness. 
Think  of  the  "  homes  "  in  which  thousands  and  thousands 
of  young  girls  are  reared  in  our  large  cities.  Think  of  what 
they  see  and  what  they  hear ;  of  what  they  come  in  contact 
with.  How  is  it  possible  for  the  virtues  to  grow  in  the 
damp  and  darkened  basements  ?  Can  we  expect  that  love 
and  chastity  and  all  that  is  sweet  and  gentle  will  be  pro- 
duced in  these  surroundings,  in  cellars  and  garrets,  in 
poverty  and  dirt  ?    The  surroundings  must  be  changed. 

Qtcestion.  Are  the  fathers  and  brothers  blameless  who 
allow  young  girls  to  make  coats,  cloaks  and  vests  in  an  at- 
mosphere poisoned  by  the  ignorant  and  low-bred  ? 

Answer.  The  same  causes  now  brutalizing  girls  brutalize 
their  fathers  and  their  brothers,  and  the  same  causes 
brutalize  the  ignorant  and  low-lived  that  poison  the  air  in 


426  INTERVIEWS. 

which  these  girls  are  made  to  work.  It  is  hard  to  pick  out 
one  man  and  say  that  he  is  to  blame,  or  one  woman  and 
say  that  the  fault  is  hers.  We  must  go  back  of  all  this. 
In  my  opinion,  society  raises  its  own  failures,  its  own 
criminals,  its  own  wretches  of  every  sort  and  kind.  Great 
pains  are  taken  to  raise  these  crops.  The  seeds,  it  may  be, 
were  sown  thousands  of  years  ago,  but  thej^  were  sown,  and 
the  present  is  the  necessary  child  of  all  the  past.  If  the 
future  is  to  differ  from  the  present,  the  seeds  must  now  be 
sown.  It  is  not  simply  a  question  of  charity,  or  a  ques- 
tion of  good  nature,  or  a  question  of  what  we  call  justice 
— it  is  a  question  of  intelligence.  In  the  first  place,  I  sup- 
pose that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  human  being  to  support 
himself — first,  that  he  may  not  become  a  burden  upon  others, 
and  second,  that  he  may  help  others.  I  think  all  people 
should  be  taught  never,  under  any  circumstances,  if  by 
any  possibility  they  can  avoid  it,  to  become  a  burden. 
Every  one  should  be  taught  the  nobility  of  labor,  the  hero- 
ism and  splendor  of  honest  effort.  As  long  as  it  is  con- 
sidered disgraceful  to  labor,  or  aristocratic  not  to  labor,  the 
world  will  be  filled  with  idleness  and  crime,  and  with  every 
possible  moral  deformity. 

Question.  Has  the  public  school  system  anything  to  do 
with  the  army  of  pupils  who,  after  six  3^ears  of  study, 
willingly  accept  the  injustice  and  hardship  imposed  by 
capital  ? 

Answer.  The  great  trouble  with  the  public  school  is  tha^ 
many  things  are  taught  that  are  of  no  immediate  use.  I 
believe  in  manual  training  schools.  I  believe  in  the  kin- 
dergarten system.  Every  person  ought  to  be  taught  how  to  do 
something — ought  to  be  taught  the  use  of  their  hands.  They 
should  endeavor  to  put  in  palpable  form  the  ideas  that  they 
gain.  Such  an  education  gives  them  a  confidence  in  them- 
selves, a  confidence  in  the  future — gives  them  a  spirit  and 
feeling  of  independence  that  they  do  not  now  have.     Men  go 


INTERVIEWS.  427 

through  College  studying  for  many  years,  and  when  gradu- 
ated have  not  the  slightest  conception  of  how  to  make  a 
living  in  any  department  of  human  effort.  Thousands  of 
them  are  to-day  doing  manual  labor  and  doing  it  very 
poorly,  whereas,  if  they  had  been  taught  the  use  of  tools, 
the  use  of  their  hands,  they  would  derive  a  certain  pleasure 
from  their  work.  It  is  splendid  to  do  anything  well.  One 
can  be  just  as  poetic  working  with  iron  and  wood  as  work- 
ing with  words  and  colors. 

Question.  What  ought  to  be  done,  or  what  is  to  be  the 
end? 

Answer.  The  great  thing  is  for  the  people  to  know  the 
facts.  There  are  thousands  and  millions  of  splendid  and 
sympathetic  people  who  would  willingly  help,  if  they  only 
knew ;  but  they  go  through  the  world  in  such  a  way  that 
they  know  but  little  of  it.  They  go  to  their  place  of 
business ;  they  stay  in  their  offices  for  a  few  hours ;  they 
go  home  ;  the^^  spend  the  evening  there  or  at  a  club ;  they 
come  in  contact  with  the  well-to-do,  with  the  successful, 
with  the  satisfied,  and  they  know  nothing  of  the  thousands 
and  millions  on  every  side.  They  have  not  the  least  idea 
how  the  world  lives,  how  it  works,  how  it  suffers.  They 
read,  of  course,  now  and  then,  some  paragraph  in  which 
the  misfortune  of  some  wretch  is  set  forth,  but  the  wretch 
is  a  kind  of  steel  engraving,  an  unreal  shadow,  a  some- 
thing utterly  unlike  themselves.  The  real  facts  should  be 
brought  home,  the  sympathies  of  men  awakened,  and 
awakened  to  such  a  degree  that  they  will  go  and  see 
how  these  people  live,  see  how  they  work,  see  how  they 
suffer. 

Question.  Does  exposure  do  any  good  ? 

Answer.  I  hope  that  The  World  will  keep  on.  I  hope  that 
it  will  expose  every  horror  that  it  can,  connected  with  the 
robbery  of  poor  and  helpless  girls,  and  I  hope  that  it  will 
publish  the  names  of  all  the  robbers  it  can  find,  and  the 


428  INTERVIEWS. 

wretches  who  oppress  the  poor  and  who  live  npon  the 
misfortunes  of  women. 

The  crosses  of  this  world  are  mostly  born  by  wives,  by 
mothers  and  by  daughters.  Their  brows  are  pierced  by 
thorns.  They  shed  the  bitterest  tears.  They  live  and  suffer 
and  die  for  others.  It  is  almost  enough  to  make  one  insane 
to  think  of  what  woman,  in  the  years  of  savagery  and  civil- 
ization, has  suffered.  Think  of  the  anxiety  and  agony  of 
motherhood.  Maternity  is  the  most  pathetic  fact  in  the 
universCc  Think  how  helpless  girls  are.  Think  of  the 
thorns  in  the  paths  they  walk — of  the  trials,  the  tempta- 
tions, the  want,  the  misfortune,  the  dangers  and  anxieties 
that  fill  their  days  and  nights.  Every  true  man  will  sym- 
pathize with  woman,  and  will  do  all  in  his  power  to  lighten 
her  burdens  and  increase  the  sunshine  of  her  life. 

Question.  Is  there  any  remedy  ? 

Answer.  I  have  always  wondered  that  the  great  corpora- 
tions have  made  no  provisions  for  their  old  and  worn  out 
employes.  It  seems  to  me  that  not  only  great  railway 
companies,  but  great  manufacturing  corporations,  ought  to 
provide  for  their  workmeur  Many  of  them  are  worn  out, 
unable  longer  to  work,  and  they  are  thrown  aside  like  old 
clothes.  They  find  their  way  to  the  poorhouses  or  die  in 
tenements  by  the  roadside.  This  seems  almost  infinitely 
heartless.  Men  of  great  wealth,  engaged  in  manufacturing, 
instead  of  giving  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  a 
library,  or  a  million  dollars  for  a  college,  ought  to  put  this 
money  aside,  invest  it  in  bonds  of  the  Government,  and  the 
interest  ought  to  be  used  in  taking  care  of  the  old,  of  the 
helpless,  of  those  who  meet  with  accidents  in  their  work. 
Under  our  laws,  if  an  employe  is  caught  in  a  wheel  or  in  a 
band,  and  his  arm  or  leg  is  torn  off,  he  is  left  to  the  charity 
of  the  community,  whereas  the  profits  of  the  business  ought 
to  support  him  in  his  old  age.  If  employes  had  this  feel- 
ing— that  they  were  not  simply  working  for  that  day,  not 


INTERVIEWS.  429 

simply  working  while  they  have  health  and  strength,  but 
laying  aside  a  little  sunshine  for  the  winter  of  age — if  they 
only  felt  that  they,  by  their  labor,  were  creating  a  fireside 
in  front  of  which  their  age  and  helplessness  could  sit,  the 
feeling  between  employed  and  employers  would  be  a  thou- 
sand times  better.  On  the  great  railways  very  few  people 
know  the  number  of  the  injured,  of  those  who  lose  their 
hands  or  feet,  of  those  who  contract  diseases  riding  on  the 
tops  of  freight  trains  in  snow  and  sleet  and  storm ;  and  yet, 
when  these  men  become  old  and  helpless  through  accident, 
they  are  left  to  shift  for  themselves.  The  company  is  im- 
mortal, but  the  employes  become  helpless.  Now,  it  seems 
to  me  that  a  certain  per  cent,  should  be  laid  aside,  so  that 
every  brakeman  and  conductor  could  feel  that  he  was  pro- 
viding for  himself,  as  well  as  for  his  fellow- workmen,  so 
that  when  the  dark  days  came  there  would  be  a  little 
light. 

The  men  of  wealth,  the  men  who  control  these  great 
corporations — these  great  mills — give  millions  away  in 
ostentatious  charity.  They  send  missionaries  to  foreign 
lands.  They  endow  schools  and  universities  and  allow  the 
men  who  earned  the  surplus  to  die  in  want.  I  believe  in 
no  charity  that  is  founded  on  robbery.  I  have  no  admira- 
tion for  generous  highwaymen  or  extravagant  pirates.  At 
the  foundation  of  charity  should  be  justice.  Let  these 
men  whom  others  have  made  wealthy  give  something  to 
the  workmen — something  to  those  who  created  their  for- 
tunes. This  would  be  one  step  in  the  right  direction. 
Do  not  let  it  be  regarded  as  charity— let  it  be  regarded  as 
justice. — New  York  Worldy,  Deoemteer 3, 1888. 


PROTECTION  FOR  AMERICAN  ACTORS. 

Question.  It  is  reported  that  you  have  been  retained  as 
counsel  for  the  Actors"  Order  of  Friendship — the  Edwin 
Forrest  Lodge  of  New  York,  and  the  Shakespeare  Lodge  of 
Philadelphia — for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  necessary 
legislation  to  protect  American  actors — is  that  so? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  have  been  retained  for  that  purpose,  and 
the  object  is  simply  that  American  actors  may  be  put  upon 
an  equal  footing  with  Americans  engaged  in  other  employ- 
ments. There  is  a  law  now  which  prevents  contractors 
going  abroad  and  employing  mechanics  or  skilled  workmen 
and  bringing  them  to  this  country  to  take  the  places  of 
our  citizens. 

No  one  objects  to  the  English,  German  and  French 
mechanics  coming  with  their  wives  and  children  to  this 
country  and  making  their  homes  here.  Our  ports  are  open, 
and  have  been  since  the  foundation  of  the  Governmento 
Wages  are  somewhat  higher  in  this  country  than  in  any 
other,  and  the  man  who  really  settles  here,  who  becomes,  or 
intends  to  become  an  American  citizen,  will  demand 
American  wages.  But  if  a  manufacturer  goes  to  Europe, 
he  can  make  a  contract  there  and  bring  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  mechanics  to  this  country  who  will  work  for 
less  wages  than  the  American,  and  a  law  was  passed  to 
prevent  the  American  manufacturer,  who  was  protected  by 
a  tariff,  from  burning  the  laborer's  candle  at  both  ends. 
That  is  to  say,  we  do  not  wish  to  give  him  the  American 
price,  by  means  of  a  tariff,  and  then  allow  him  to  go  to 
Europe  and  import  his  labor  at  the  European  price. 

In  the  law,  actors  were  excepted,  and  we  now  find  that 
managers  are    bringing  entire  companies    from    the    old 


INTERVIEWS.  431 

tountry,  making  contracts  with  tliem  there,  and  getting 
them  at  much  lower  prices  than  they  would  have  to  pay 
for  American  actors. 

No  one  objects  to  a  foreign  actor  coming  here  for  employ- 
ment, but  we  do  not  want  an  American  manager  to  go 
there,  and  employ  him  to  act  here.  No  one  objects  to  the 
importation  of  a  star.  We  wish  to  see  and  hear  the  best 
actors  in  the  world.  But  the  rest  of  the  company — the  sup- 
port— should  be  engaged  in  the  United  States,  if  the  star 
speaks  English. 

I  see  that  it  is  contended  over  in  England,  that  English 
actors  are  monopolizing  the  American  stage  because  they 
speak  English,  while  the  average  American  actor  does  not. 
The  real  reason  is  that  the  English  actor  works  for  less 
money — he  is  the  cheaper  article.  Certainly  no  one  will 
accuse  the  average  English  actor  of  speaking  English,  The 
hemming  and  hawing,  the  aristocratic  stutter,  the  dropping 
of  h's  and  picking  them  up  at  the  wrong  time,  have  never 
been  popular  in  the  United  States,  except  by  way  of  carica- 
ture. Nothing  is  more  absurd  than  to  take  the  ground 
that  the  English  actors  are  superior  to  the  American.  I 
know  of  no  English  actor  who  can  for  a  moment  be  com- 
pared with  Joseph  Jefferson,  or  with  Edwin  Booth,  or  with 
Lawrence  Barrett,  or  with  Denman  Thompson,  and  I  could 
easily  name  others. 

If  English  actors  are  so  much  better  than  American,  how 
is  it  that  an  American  star  is  supported  by  the  English? 
Mary  Anderson  is  certainly  an  American  actress,  and  she  is 
supported  by  English  actors.  Is  it  possible  that  the 
superior  support  the  inferior  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  En- 
gland has  her  equal  as  an  actress.  Her  Hermione  is  won- 
derful, and  the  appeal  to  Apollo  sublime.  In  Perdita  she 
"takes  the  winds  of  March  with  beauty."  Where  is  an 
actress  on  the  English  stage  the  superior  of  Julia  Marlowe 
in  genius,  in  originality,  in  naturalness? 


432  INTERVIEWS. 

Is  there  any  better  Mrs.  Malaprop  than  Mrs.  Drew,  and 
better  Sir  Anthony  than  John  Gilbert?  No  one  denies  that 
the  English  actors  and  actresses  are  great.  No  one  will 
deny  that  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  are  the  greatest  that 
have  been  produced,  and  no  one  wishes  in  any  way  to  be- 
little the  genius  of  the  English  people. 

In  this  country  the  average  person  speaks  fairly  good 
English,  and  you  will  find  substantially  the  same  English 
spoken  in  most  of  the  country ;  whereas  in  England  there  is 
a  different  dialect  in  almost  every  county,  and  most  of  the 
English  people  speak  the  language  as  if  it  was  not  their 
native  tongue.  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  English 
write  a  good  deal  better  than  they  speak,  and  that  their 
pronunciation  is  not  altogether  perfect. 

These  things,  however,  are  not  worth  speaking  of.  There 
is  no  absolute  standard.  They  speak  in  the  way  that  is 
natural  to  them,  and  we  in  the  way  that  is  natural  to  us. 
This  difference  furnishes  no  foundation  for  a  claim  of 
general  superiority.  The  English  actors  are  not  brought 
here  on  account  of  their  excellence,  but  on  account  of  their 
cheapness.  It  requires  no  great  ability  to  play  the  minor 
parts,  or  the  leading  roles  in  some  plays,  for  that  matter. 
And  yet  acting  is  a  business,  a  profession,  a  means  of  gain- 
ing bread. 

We  protect  our  mechanics  and  makers  of  locomotives  and 
of  all  other  articles.  Why  should  we  not  protect,  by  the  same 
means,  the  actor  ?  You  may  say  that  we  can  get  along 
without  actors.  So  we  can  get  along  without  painters, 
without  sculptors  and  without  poets.  But  a  nation  that 
gets  along  without  these  people  of  genius  amounts  to  but 
little.  We  can  do  without  music,  without  players  and  with- 
out composers  ;  but  when  we  take  art  and  poetry  and  music 
and  the  theatre  out  of  the  world,  it  becomes  an  exceed- 
ingly dull  place. 

Actors  are  protected   and  cared  for  in  proportion  that 


INTERVIEWS.  433 

people  are  civilized.  If  the  people  are  intelligent,  educated, 
and  have  imaginations,  they  enjoy  the  world  of  the  stage, 
the  creations  of  poets,  and  they  are  thrilled  by  great  music, 
and,  as  a  consequence,  respect  the  dramatist,  the  actor  and 
the  musician. 

Question.  It  is  claimed  that  an  amendment  to  the  law, 
such  as  is  desired,  will  interfere  v/ith  the  growth  of  art  ? 

Answer,  No  one  is  endeavoring  to  keep  stars  from  this 
country.  If  they  have  American  support,  and  the  stars 
really  know  anything,  the  American  actors  will  get  the 
benefit.  If  they  bring  their  support  with  them,  the  Ameri- 
can actor  is  not  particularly  benefited,  and  the  star,  when 
the  season  is  over,  takes  his  art  and  his  money  with  him. 

Managers  who  insist  on  employing  foreign  support  are 
not  sacrificing  anything  for  art.  Their  object  is  to  make 
money.  They  care  nothing  for  the  American  actor — noth- 
ing for  the  American  drama.  They  look  for  the  receipts. 
It  is  the  sheerest  cant  to  pretend  that  they  are  endeavoring 
to  protect  art. 

On  the  26th  of  February,  1885,  a  law  was  passed  making 
it  unlawful  **  for  any  person,  company,  partnership  or  cor- 
poration, in  any  manner  whatsoever,  to  prepay  the  trans- 
portation, or  in  any  way  assist  or  encourage  the  importa- 
tion or  emigration  of  any  alien  or  aliens  into  the  United 
States,  under  contract  or  agreement,  parol  or  special, 
previous  to  the  importation  or  emigration  of  such  aliens  to 
perform  labor  or  services  of  any  kind  in  the  United  States." 

By  this  act  it  was  provided  that  its  provisions  should  not 
apply  to  professional  actors,  artists,  lecturers  or  singers,  in 
regard  to  persons  employed  strictly  as  personal  or  domestic 
servants.  The  object  now  in  view  is  so  to  amend  the  law 
that  its  provisions  shall  apply  to  all  actors  except  stars. 

Question.  In  this  connection  there  has  been  so  much  said 
about  the  art  of  acting — what  is  your  idea  as  to  that  art? 

Answer,  Above  all  things  in  acting,   there  must  be  pro- 


434  INTERVIEWS. 

portion.  There  are  no  miracles  in  art  or  nature.  All  that 
is  done — every  inflection  and  gesture — must  be  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  circumstances.  Sensationalism  is  based 
on  deformity,  and  bears  the  same  relation  to  proportion  that 
caricature  does  to  likeness. 

The  stream  that  flows  even  with  its  banks,  making  the 
meadows  green,  delights  us  ever;  the  one  that  overflows 
surprises  for  a  moment.  But  we  do  not  want  a  succession 
of  floods. 

In  acting  there  must  be  natural  growth,  not  sudden 
climax.  The  atmosphere  of  the  situation,  the  relation  sus- 
tained to  others,  should  produce  the  emotions.  Nothing 
should  be  strained.  Beneath  domes  there  should  be  build- 
ings, and  buildings  should  have  foundations.  There  must 
be  growth.  There  should  be  the  bud,  the  leaf,  the  flower, 
in  natural  sequence.  There  must  be  no  leap  from  naked 
branches  to  the  perfect  fruit. 

Most  actors  depend  on  climax — they  save  themselves  for 
the  supreme  explosion.  The  scene  opens  with  a  slow  match 
and  ends  when  the  spark  reaches  the  dynamite.  So,  most 
authors  fill  the  first  act  with  contradictions  and  the  last  with 
explanations.  Plots  and  counter-plots,  violence  and  ve- 
hemence, perfect  saints  and  perfect  villains — that  is  to  say, 
monsters,  impelled  by  improbable  motives,  meet  upon  the 
stage,  where  they  are  pushed  and  pulled  for  the  sake  of  the 
situation,  and  where  everything  is  so  managed  that  the  fire 
reaches  the  powder  and  the  explosion  is  the  climax. 

There  is  neither  time,  nor  climate,  nor  soil,  in  which  the 
emotions  and  intentions  may  grow.  No  land  is  plowed,  no 
seed  is  sowed,  no  rain  falls,  no  light  glows — the  events  are 
all  orphans. 

No  one  would  enjoy  a  sudden  sunset — we  want  the  clouds 
of  gold  that  float  in  the  azure  sea.  No  one  would  enjoy  a 
sudden  sunrise — we  are  in  love  with  the  morning  star,  with 
the  dawo  that  modestly  heralds  the  dsiy  and  draws  aside. 


INTERVIEWS.  435 

with  timid  hands,  the  curtains  of  the  night.    In  other  words, 
we  want  sequence,  proportion,  logic,  beauty. 

There  are  several  actors  in  this  country  who  are  in  perfect 
accord  with  nature — who  appear  to  make  no  effort — v/hose 
acting  seems  to  give  them  joy  and  rest.  We  do  well  w^hat 
we  do  easily.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  exhaust  yourself, 
instead  of  the  subject.  All  great  actors  "fill  the  stage"  be- 
cause they  hold  the  attention.  You  see  them  and  nothing 
else. 

Question.  Speaking  of  American  actors,  Colonel,  I  believe 
you  are  greatly  interested  in  the  playing  of  Miss  Marlowe, 
and  have  given  your  opinion  of  her  as  Parthenia ;  what  do 
you  think  of  her  Julia  and  Viola? 

Answer.  A  little  while  ago  I  saw  Miss  Marlowe  as  Julia, 
in  "The  Hunchback."  We  must  remember  the  limitations 
of  the  play.  Nothing  can  excel  the  simplicity,  the  joyous 
content,  of  the  first  scene.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural 
than  the  excitement  produced  by  the  idea  of  leaving  what 
you  feel  to  be  simple  and  yet  good,  for  what  you  think  is 
magnificent,  brilliant  and  intoxicating.  It  is  only  in  youth 
that  we  are  willing  to  make  this  exchange.  One  does  not 
see  so  clearly  in  the  morning  of  life  w^hen  the  sun  shines  in 
his  eyes.  In  the  afternoon,  when  the  sun  is  behind  him,  he 
sees  better — he  is  no  longer  dazzled.  In  old  age  we  are  not 
only  willing,  but  anxious,  to  exchange  w^ealth  and  fame  and 
glory  and  magnificence,  for  simplicity.  All  the  palaces  are 
nothing  compared  with  our  little  cabin,  and  all  the  flowers 
of  the  world  are  naught  to  the  wild  rose  that  climbs  and 
blossoms  by  the  lowly  window  of  content. 

Happiness  dwells  in  the  valleys  with  the  shadows. 

The  moment  Julia  is  brought  in  contact  with  wealth,  she 
longs  for  the  simple — for  the  true  love  of  one  true  man. 
Wealth  and  station  are  mockeries.  These  feelings,  these 
emotions,  Miss  Marlowe  rendered  not  onlj^  wath  look  and 
voice  and  gesture,  but  with  every  pose  of  her  body;  and 


43^  INTERVIEWS. 

when  assured  that  her  nuptials  with  the  Earl  could  be 
avoided,  the  only  question  in  her  mind  was  as  to  the  abso- 
lute preservation  of  her  honor — not  simply  in  fact,  but  in 
appearance,  so  that  even  hatred  could  not  see  a  speck  upon 
the  shining  shield  of  her  perfect  truth.  In  this  scene  she 
was  perfect — everything  was  forgotten  except  the  desire  to 
be  absolutely  true. 

So  in  the  scene  with  Master  Walter,  when  he  upbraids  her 
for  forgetting  that  she  is  about  to  meet  her  father,  when 
excusing  her  forgetfulness  on  the  ground  that  he  has  been 
to  her  a  father.  Nothing  could  exceed  the  delicacy  and 
tenderness  of  this  passage.  Every  attitude  expressed  love, 
gentleness,  and  a  devotion  even  unto  death.  One  felt  that 
there  could  be  no  love  left  for  the  father  she  expected  to 
meet — Master  Walter  had  it  all. 

A  greater  Julia  was  never  on  the  stage — one  in  whom  so 
much  passion  mingled  with  so  much  purity.  Miss  Marlowe 
never  "o'ersteps  the  modesty  of  nature."  She  maintains 
proportion.    The  river  of  her  art  flows  even  with  the  banks. 

In  Viola,  we  must  remember  the  character — a  girl  just 
rescued  from  the  sea — disguised  as  a  boy — employed  by  the 
Duke,  whom  she  instantly  loves — -sent  as  his  messenger  to 
woo  another  for  him — Olivia  enamored  of  the  messenger — 
forced  to  a  duel — mistaken  for  her  brother  by  the  Captain, 
and  her  brother  taken  for  herself  by  Olivia — and  yet,  in  the 
midst  of  these  complications  and  disguises,  she  remains  a 
pure  and  perfect  girl — these  circumstances  having  no  more 
real  effect  upon  her  passionate  and  subtle  self  than  clouds 
on  stars.  \ 

When  Malvolio  follows  and  returns  the  ring  the  whole 
truth  flashes  on  her.  She  is  in  love  with  Orsino — this  she 
knows.  Olivia,  she  believes,  is  in  love  with  her.  The  edge 
of  the  situation,  the  dawn  of  this  entanglement,  excites  her 
mirth.  In  this  scene  she  becomes  charming — an  impersona- 
tion of  Spring.     Her  laughter  is  as  natural  and  musical  as 


INTERVIEWS.  437 

the  song  of  a  brook.  So,  in  the  scene  with  Olivia  in  which 
she  cries,  *'Makemea  willow  cabin  at  your  gate!  "she  is 
the  embodiment  of  grace,  and  her  voice  is  as  musical  as  the 
words,  and  as  rich  in  tone  as  they  are  in  thought. 

In  the  duel  with  Sir  Andrew  she  shows  the  difference  be- 
tween the  delicacy  of  woman  and  the  cowardice  of  man. 
She  does  the  little  that  she  can,  not  for  her  own  sake,  but 
for  the  sake  of  her  disguise — she  feels  that  she  owes  some- 
thing to  her  clothes. 

But  I  have  said  enough  about  this  actress  to  give  you  an 
idea  of  one  who  is  destined  to  stand  first  in    her  profession. 

We  will  now  come  back  to  the  real  question.  I  am  in 
favor  of  protecting  the  American  actor.  I  regard  the 
theatre  as  the  civilizer  of  man.  All  the  arts  unite  upon  the 
stage,  and  the  genius  of  the  race  has  been  lavished  on  this 

mimic  world. — New  York  Siary  December  23, 1888. 

LIBERALS  AND  LIBERALISM. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  prospects  of  Liberal- 
ism in  this  country  ? 

Answer.  The  prospects  of  Liberalism  are  precisely  the 
same  as  the  prospects  of  civilization — that  is  to  say,  of 
progress.  As  the  people  become  educated,  they  become 
liberal.  Bigotry  is  the  provincialism  of  the  mind.  Men 
are  bigoted  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  thoughts  of 
others.  They  have  been  taught  one  thing,  and  have  been 
made  to  believe  that  their  little  mental  horizon  is  the  cir- 
cumference of  all  knowledge.  The  bigot  lives  in  an  igno- 
rant village,  surrounded  by  ignorant  neighbors.  This  is 
the  honest  bigot.  The  dishonest  bigot  may  know  better, 
but  he  remains  a  bigot  because  his  salary  depends  upon  it. 
A  bigot  is  like  a  country  that  has  had  no  commerce  with  any 
other.  He  imagines  that  in  his  little  head  there  is  every- 
thing of  value.  When  a  man  becomes  an  intellectual  ex- 
plorer, an  intellectual  traveler,  he  begins  to  widen,  to  grow 


438  INTERVIEWS. 

liberal.  He  finds  that  the  ideas  of  others  are  as  good  as, 
and  often  better  than,  his  own.  The  habits  and  customs  of 
other  people  throw  light  on  his  own,  and  by  this  light  he 
is  enabled  to  discover  at  least  some  of  his  own  mistakes. 
Now  the  world  has  become  acquainted.  A  few  years  ago, 
a  man  knew  something  of  the  doctrines  of  his  own  church. 
Now  he  knows  the  creeds  of  others,  and  not  only  so,  but 
ae  has  examined  to  some  extent  the  religions  of  other 
nations.  He  finds  in  other  creeds  all  the  excellencies  that 
are  in  his  own,  and  most  of  the  mistakes.  In  this  way  he 
learns  that  all  creeds  have  been  produced  by  men,  and  that 
their  differences  have  been  accounted  for  by  race,  climate, 
heredity — that  is  to  say,  by  a  difference  in  circumstances. 
So  we  now  know  that  the  cause  of  Liberalism  is  the  cause 
of  civilization.  Unless  the  race  is  to  be  a  failure,  the  cause 
of  Liberalism  must  succeed.  Consequently,  I  have  the 
same  faith  in  that  cause  that  I  have  in  the  human  race. 

Question,  Where  are  the  most  Liberals,  and  in  what  sec- 
tion of  the  country  is  the  best  work  for  Liberalism  being 
done  ? 

Answer.  The  most  Liberals  are  in  the  most  intelligent  sec- 
tion of  the  United  States.  Where  people  think  the  most, 
you  will  find  the  most  Liberals;  where  people  think  the 
least,  you  will  find  the  most  bigots.  Bigotry  is  produced 
by  feeling — Liberalism  by  thinking — that  is  to  say,  the  one 
is  a  prejudice,  the  other  a  principle.  Every  geologist, 
every  astronomer,  every  scientist,  is  doing  a  ncble  work 
for  Liberalism.  Every  man  who  finds  a  fact,  and  demon- 
strates it,  is  doing  work  for  the  cause.  All  the  literature 
of  our  time  that  is  worth  reading  is  on  the  liberal  side. 
All  the  fiction  that  really  interests  the  human  mind  is  with 
us.  No  one  cares  to  read  the  old  theological  works. 
Essays  written  by  professors  of  theological  colleges  are  re- 
garded, even  by  Christians,  with  a  kind  of  charitable  con- 
tempt.    When  any  demonstration  of  science  is  attacked  by 


INTERVIEWS. 


439 


a  creed,  or  a  passage  of  Scripture,  all  the  intelligent  smile. 
For  these  reasons  I  think  that  the  best  work  for  Lib- 
eralism is  being  done  where  the  best  work  for  science  is 
being  done — where  the  best  work  for  man  is  being  accom- 
plished. Every  legislator  that  assists  in  the  repeal  of 
theological  laws  is  doing  a  great  work  for  Liberalism, 

Question.  In  your  opinion,  what  relation  do  Liberalism 
and  Prohibition  bear  to  each  other  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  they  have  anything  to  do  with 
each  other.  They  have  nothing  in  common  except  this  : 
The  Prohibitionists,  I  presume,  are  endeavoring  to  do 
what  they  can  for  temperance;  so  all  intelligent  Liberals 
are  doing  what  they  can  for  the  cause  of  temperance.  The 
Prohibitionist  endeavors  to  accomplish  his  object  by  legis- 
lation— the  Liberalist  by  education,  by  civilization,  by 
example,  by  persuasion.  The  method  of  the  Liberalist  is 
good,  that  of  the  Prohibitionist  chimerical  and  fc^natical. 

Questio7t.  Do  you  think  that  Liberals  should  undertake 
a  reform  in  the  marriage  and  divorce  laws  and  relations  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  Liberals  should  do  all  in  their 
power  to  induce  people  to  regard  marriage  and  divorce  in 
a  sensible  light,  and  without  the  slightest  reference  to  any 
theological  ideas.  They  should  use  their  influence  to  the 
end  that  marriage  shall  be  considered  as  a  contract — the 
highest  and  holiest  that  men  and  women  can  makCc  And 
they  should  also  use  their  influence  to  have  the  laws  of 
divorce  based  on  this  fundamental  idea, — that  marriage  is 
a  contract.  All  should  be  done  that  can  be  done  by  law 
to  uphold  the  sacredness  of  this  relation.  All  should  be 
done  that  can  be  done  to  im] .  sss  upon  the  minds  of  all 
men  and  all  women  their  duty  to  discharge  all  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  marriage  contract  faithfully  and  cheerfully,  I 
do  not  believe  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  State  or  of 
the  Nation,  that  people  should  be  compelled  to  live  together 
who  hate  each  other,  or  that  a  woman  should  be  bound  to 


440  INTERVIEWS. 

a  man  who  has  been  false  and  who  refuses  to  fulfill  the 
contract  of  marriage.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man 
should  call  upon  the  police,  or  upon  the  creeds,  or  upon 
the  church,  to  compel  his  wife  to  remain  under  his  roof, 
or  to  compel  a  woman  against  her  will  to  become  the 
mother  of  his  children.  In  other  words,  Liberals  should 
endeavor  to  civilize  mankind,  and  when  men  and  women 
are  civilized,  the  marriage  question,  and  the  divorce  ques- 
tion, will  be  settled. 

Question.    Should  Liberals  vote  on  Liberal  issues? 

'Answer.  I  think  that,  other  things  being  anywhere  near 
equal.  Liberals  should  vote  for  men  who  believe  in  liberty, 
men  who  believe  in  giving  to  others  the  rights  they  claim 
for  themselves — that  is  to  say,  for  civilized  men,  for  men 
of  some  breadth  of  mind.  Liberals  should  do  what  they 
can  to  do  away  with  all  the  theological  absurdities. 

Question.  Can,  or  ought,  the  Liberals  and  Spiritualists 
to  unite? 

Answer.  All  people  should  unite  where  they  have  ob- 
jects in  common.  They  can  vote  together,  and  act  to- 
gether, without  believing  the  same  on  all  points.  A  Lib- 
eral is  not  necessarily  a  Spiritualist,  and  a  Spiritualist  is 
not  necessarily  a  Liberal.  If  Spiritualists  wish  to  liberal- 
ize the  Government,  certainly  Liberals  would  be  glad  of 
their  assistance,  and  if  Spiritualists  take  any  step  in  the 
direction  of  freedom,  the  Liberals  should  stand  by  them 
to  that  extent. 

Question.  Which  is  the  more  dangerous  to  American  in- 
stitutions— the  National  Reform  Association  (God-in-the- 
Constitution  party)  or  the  Roman  Catholic  Church? 

Answer,  The  Association  and  the  Catholic  Church  are 
dangerous  according  to  their  power.  The  Catholic  Church 
has  far  more  power  than  the  Reform  Association,  and  is 
consequently  far  more  dangerous.  The  God-in-the-Con- 
stitution  association  is  weak,  fanatical,  stupid,  and  absurd. 


INTERVIEWS.  441 

What  God  are  we  to  have  in  the  Constitution  ?  Whose 
God  ?  If  we  should  agree  to-morrow  to  put  God  in  the 
Constitution,  the  question  would  then  be :  Which  God  ? 
On  that  question,  the  religious  world  would  fall  out.  In 
that  direction  there  is  no  danger.  But  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  the  enemy  of  intellectual  liberty.  It  is  the  enemy 
of  investigation.  It  is  the  enemy  of  free  schools.  That 
church  always  has  been,  always  will  be,  the  enemy  of  free- 
dom. It  works  in  the  dark.  When  in  a  minority  it  is 
humility  itself — when  in  power  it  is  the  impersonation  of 
arrogance.  In  weakness  it  crawls — in  power  it  stands 
erect,  and  compels  its  victims  to  fall  upon  their  faces. 
The  most  dangerous  institution  in  this  world,  so  far  as 
the  intellectual  liberty  of  man  is  concerned,  is  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  Next  to  that  is  the  Protestant 
Church. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  Christian  religion 
and  the  Christian  Church  ? 

Answer.  Mj^  opinion  upon  this  subject  is  certainly  well 
known.  The  Christian  Church  is  founded  upon  miracles— 
that  is  to  say,  upon  impossibilities.  Of  course,  there  is  a 
great  deal  that  is  good  in  the  creeds  of  the  churches,  and 
in  the  sermons  delivered  by  its  ministers  \  but  mixed  with 
this  good  is  much  that  is  evil.  My  principal  objection  to 
orthodox  religion  is  the  dogma  of  eternal  pain.  Nothing 
can  be  more  infamously  absurd.  All  civilized  men  should 
denounce  it — all  women  should  regard  it  with  a  kind  of  shud- 
dering abhorrence. — SecularThought^  Toronto,  Canada,  1888. 


POPE  LEO  XIII. 

Question.  Do  you  agree  with  the  views  of  Pope  Leo  XIII. 
as  expressed  in  The  Herald  of  last  week  ? 

Answer,  I  am  not  personally  acquainted  with  Leo  XIIL, 
but  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  that  he  loves  Americans 
or  their  country.  I  regard  him  as  an  enemy  of  intellectual 
liberty.  He  tells  us  that  where  the  church  is  free  it  will 
increase,  and  I  say  to  him  that  where  others  are  free  it  will 
not.  The  Catholic  Church  has  increased  in  this  country 
by  immigration  and  in  no  other  way.  Possibly  the  Pope 
is  willing  to  use  his  power  for  the  good  of  the  whole 
people,  Protestants  and  Catholics,  and  to  increase  their 
prosperity  and  happiness,  because  by  this  he  means  that  he 
will  use  his  power  to  make  Catholics  out  of  Protestants. 

It  is  impossible  for  the  Catholic  Church  to  be  in  favor  of 
mental  freedom.  That  church  represents  absolute  author- 
ity. Its  members  have  no  right  to  reason — no  right  to  ask 
questions — they  are  called  on  simply  to  believe  and  to  pay 
their  subscriptions. 

Question,  Do  you  agree  with  the  Pope  when  he  says  that 
the  result  of  efforts  which  have  been  made  to  throw  aside 
Christianity  and  live  without  it  can  be  seen  in  the  present 
condition  of  society — discontent,  disorder,  hatred  and  pro- 
found unhappiness  ? 

Answer,  Undoubtedly  the  people  in  Europe  who  wish  to 
be  free  are  discontented.  Undoubtedly  these  efforts  to  have 
something  like  justice  done  will  bring  disorder.  Those  in 
power  will  hate  those  who  are  endeavoring  to  drive  them 
from  their  thrones.  If  the  people  now,  as  formerly,  would 
bear  all  burdens  cheerfully  placed  upon  their  shoulders  by 
church  and  state — that  is  to  say,  if  they  were  so  enslaved 
mentally  that  they  would  not  even  have  sense  enough  to 

(442) 


INTERVIEWS.  443 

complain,  then  there  would  be  what  the  Pope  might  call 
"  peace  and  happiness  " — that  is  to  say,  the  peace  of  igno- 
rance, and  the  happiness  of  those  who  are  expecting  pay- 
in  another  world  for  their  agonies  endured  in  this. 

Of  course,  the  revolutionists  of  Europe  are  not  satisfied 
with  the  Catholic  religion  ;  neither  are  they  satisfied  with 
the  Protestant.  Both  of  these  religions  rest  upon  authority. 
Both  discourage  reason.  Both  say  "  Let  him  that  hath  ears 
to  hear,  hear,"  but  neither  says  let  him  that  hath  brains  to 
think,  think. 

Christianity  has  been  thoroughly  tried,  and  it  is  a  failure. 
Nearly  every  church  has  upheld  slavery,  not  only  of  the 
body,  but  of  the  mind.  When  Christian  missionaries  in- 
vade what  they  call  a  heathen  countrj^,  they  are  followed  in 
a  little  while  by  merchants  and  traders,  and  in  a  few  days 
afterward  by  the  army.  The  first  real  work  is  to  kill  the 
heathen  or  steal  their  lands,  or  else  reduce  them  to  some- 
thing like  slavery. 

I  have  no  confidence  in  the  reformation  of  this  world  by 
churches.  Churches  for  the  most  part  exist,  not  for  this 
world,  but  for  another.  They  are  founded  upon  the 
supernatural,  and  they  say:  "Take  no  thought  for  the 
morrow ;  put  your  trust  in  your  Heavenly  Father  and  he  will 
take  care  of  you."  On  the  other  hand,  science  says  :  "  You 
must  take  care  of  yourself,  live  for  the  world  in  which  you 
happen  to  be — if  there  is  another,  live  for  that  when  you  get 
there." 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  plan  to  better  the 
condition  of  the  workingmen,  by  committees  headed  by 
bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  discussing  their 
duties  ? 

Answer.  If  the  bishops  wish  to  discuss  with  anybody 
about  duties  they  had  better  discuss  with  the  employers, 
instead  of  the  employed.  This  discussion  had  better  take 
place  between  the  clergy  and  the  capitalist.     There  is  no 


444  INTERVIEWS. 

need  of  discussing  this  question  with  the  poor  wretches  who 
cannot  earn  more  than  enough  to  keep  their  souls  in  their 
bodies.  If  the  Catholic  Church  has  so  much  power,  and 
if  it  represents  God  on  earth,  let  it  turn  its  attention  to 
softening  the  hearts  of  capitalists,  and  no  longer  waste  its 
time  in  preaching  patience  to  the  poor  slaves  who  are  now 
bearing  the  burdens  of  the  world. 

Question.  Do  you  agree  with  the  Pope  that:  "Sound 
rules  of  life  must  be  founded  on  religion  "  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  Sound  rules  of  life  must  be  founded 
on  the  experience  of  mankind.  In  other  words,  we  must 
live  for  this  world.  Why  should  men  throw  away  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  millions  of  dollars  in  building 
cathedrals  and  churches,  and  paying  the  salaries  of  bishops 
and  priests,  and  cardinals  and  popes,  and  get  no  possible 
return  for  all  this  money  except  a  few  guesses  about 
another  world — those  guesses  being  stated  as  facts — when 
every  pope  and  priest  and  bishop  knows  that  no  one 
knows  the  slightest  thing  on  the  subject.  Superstition  is 
the  greatest  burden  borne  by  the  industry  of  the  world. 

The  nations  of  Europe  to-day  all  pretend  to  be  Christian, 
yet  millions  of  men  are  drilled  and  armed  for  the  purpose 
of  killing  other  Christians.  Each  Christian  nation  is  forti- 
fied to  prevent  other  Christians  from  devastating  their 
fields.  There  is  already  a  debt  of  about  twenty-five  thou- 
sand millions  of  dollars  which  has  been  incurred  by  Chris- 
tian nations,  because  each  one  is  afraid  of  every  other,  and 
yet  all  say  :  ''  It  is  our  duty  to  love  our  enemies." 

This  world,  in  my  judgment,  is  to  be  reformed  through 
intelligence — through  development  of  the  mind — not  by 
credulity,  but  by  investigation ;  not  by  faith  in  the  super- 
natural, but  by  faith  in  the  natural.  The  church  has 
passed  the  zenith  of  her  power.  The  clergy  must  stand 
aside.     Scientists  must  take  their  places. 

Quesiio7i.  Do  you  agree  with  the  Pope  in  attacking  the 


INTERVIEWS.  445 

present  governments  of  Europe  and  the  memories  of  Maz- 
zini  and  Safi5  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  think  Mazzini  was  of  more  use  to 
Italy  than  all  the  popes  that  ever  occupied  the  chair  of  St. 
Peter — which,  by  the  way,  was  not  his  chair.  I  have  a 
thousand  times  more  regard  for  Mazzini,  for  Garibaldi,  for 
Cavour,  than  I  have  for  any  gentleman  who  pretends  to  be 
the  representative  of  God. 

There  is  another  objection  I  have  to  the  Pope,  and  that 
is  that  he  was  so  scandalized  when  a  monument  was  reared 
in  Rome  to  the  memory  of  Giordano  Bruno.  Bruno  was 
murdered  about  two  hundred  and  ninety  years  ago  by  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  such  has  been  the  development  of 
the  human  brain  and  heart  that  on  the  very  spot  where  he 
was  murdered  a  monument  rises  to  his  memory. 

But  the  vicar  of  God  has  remained  stationary,  and  he 
regards  this  mark  of  honor  to  one  of  the  greatest  and 
noblest  of  the  human  race  as  an  act  of  blasphemy.  The 
poor  old  man  acts  as  if  America  had  never  been  dis- 
covered— as  if  the  world  were  still  flat — and  as  if  the 
stars  had  been  made  out  of  little  pieces  left  over  from 
the  creation  of  the  world  and  stuck  in  the  sky  simply  to 
beautify  the  night. 

But,  after  all,  I  do  not  blame  this  Pope.  He  is  the 
victim  of  his  surroundings.  He  was  never  married.  His 
heart  was  never  softened  by  wife  or  children.  He  was  born 
that  way,  and,  to  tell  you  the  truth,  he  has  my  sincere 
5?ympathy.     Let  him  talk  about  America  and  stay  in  Italy, 

—  The  Herald,  New  York,  April  22,  1890. 


THE  SACREDNESS  OF  THE  SABBATH. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
Sabbath  ? 

Ajiswer,  I  think  all  days,  all  times  and  all  seasons  are 
alike  sacred.  I  think  the  best  day  in  a  man's  life  is  the 
day  that  he  is  truly  the  happiest.  Every  day  in  which 
good  is  done  to  humanity  is  a  holy  day. 

If  I  were  to  make  a  calendar  of  sacred  days,  I  would  put 
down  the  days  in  which  the  greatest  inventions  came  to 
the  mind  of  genius ;  the  days  when  scattered  tribes  be- 
came nations  ;  the  days  when  good  laws  were  passed ;  the 
days  when  bad  ones  were  repealed  ;  the  days  when  kings 
were  dethroned,  and  the  people  given  their  own;  in 
other  words,  every  day  in  which  good  has  been  done; 
in  which  men  and  women  have  truly  fallen  in  love,  days  in 
which  babes  were  born  destined  to  change  the  civilization 
of  the  world.  These  are  all  sacred  days;  days  in  which 
men  have  fought  for  the  right,  suffered  for  the  right,  died 
for  the  right ;  all  days  in  which  there  were  heroic  actions 
for  good.  The  day  when  slavery  was  abolished  in  the 
United  States  is  holier  than  any  Sabbath  by  reason  of 
*'  divine  consecration." 

Of  course,  I  care  nothing  about  the  sacredness  of  the 
Sabbath  because  it  was  hallowed  in  the  Old  Testament,  or 
because  on  that  day  Jehovah  is  said  to  have  rested  from  his 
labors.  A  space  of  time  cannot  be  sacred,  any  more  than  a 
vacuum  can  be  sacred,  and  it  is  rendered  sacred  by  deeds 
done  in  it,  and  not  in  and  of  itself. 

If  we  should  finally  invent  some  means  of  traveling  by 
which  we  could  go  a  thousand  miles  a  day,  a  man  could 
escape  Sunday  all  his  life  by  traveling  West.  He  could 
start  Monday,  and  stay  Monday  all  the  time.  Or,  if  he 
should  some  time  get  near  the  North  Pole,  he  could  walk 

(446) 


INTERVIEWS.  447 

faster  than  the  earth  turns  and  thus  beat  Sunday  all  the 
while. 

Question.  Should  not  the  museums  and  art  galleries  be 
thrown  opea  to  the  workingmen  free  on  Sunday  ? 

Answer.  Undoubtedly.  In  all  civilized  countries  this  is 
done,  and  \  believe  it  would  be  done  in  New  York,  only  it 
is  said  thait  money  has  been  given  on  condition  that  the 
museums  should  be  kept  closed  on  Sundays.  I  have  al- 
so heard  it  said  that  large  sums  will  be  withheld  by  certain 
old  people  who  have  the  prospect  of  dying  in  the  near 
future  if  the  museums  are  open  on  Sunday. 

This,  however,  seems  to  me  a  very  poor  and  shallow 
excuse.  Money  should  not  be  received  under  such  condi- 
tions. One  of  the  curses  of  our  country  has  been  the  giving 
of  gifts  to  religious  colleges  on  certain  conditions.  As,  for 
instance,  the  money  given  to  Andover  by  the  original 
founder  on  the  condition  that  a  certain  creed  be  taught, 
and  other  large  amounts  have  been  given  on  a  like  condi- 
tion. Now,  the  result  of  this  is  that  the  theological  pro- 
fessor must  teach  what  these  donors  have  indicated,  or  go 
out  of  the  institution  ;  or — and  this  last  "or"  is  generally 
the  trouble — teach  what  he  does  not  believe,  endeavoring  to 
get  around  it  by  giving  new  meanings  to  old  words. 

I  think  the  cause  of  intellectual  progress  has  been  much 
delayed  by  these  conditions  put  in  the  wills  of  supposed 
benefactors,  so  that  after  they  are  dead  they  can  rule  peo- 
ple who  have  the  habit  of  being  alive.  In  my  opinion,  a 
corpse  is  a  poor  ruler,  and  after  a  man  is  dead  he  should 
keep  quiet. 

Of  course  all  that  he  did  will  live,  and  should  be  allowed 
to  have  its  natural  effect.  If  he  was  a  great  inventor  or 
discoverer,  or  if  he  uttered  great  truths,  these  became  the 
property  of  the  world ;  but  he  should  not  endeavor,  after  he 
is  dead,  to  rule  the  living  by  conditions  attached  to  gifts. 
,    All   the  museums  and  libraries   should  be  opened,  not 


448         "~  INTERVIEWS. 

onl}^  to  workingmen,  but  to  all  others.  If  to  see  great 
paintings,  great  statues,  wonderful  works  of  art ;  if  to  read 
the  thoughts  of  the  greatest  men — if  these  things  tend  to 
the  civilization  of  the  race,  then  they  should  be  put  as 
nearly  as  possible  within  the  reach  of  all. 

The  man  who  works  eight  or  ten  or  twelve  hours  a  day 
has  no  time  during  the  six  days  of  labor  to  visit  libraries 
or  museums.  Sunday  is  his  day  of  leisure,  his  day  of 
recreation,  and  on  that  day  he  should  have  the  privilege, 
and  he  himself  should  deem  it  a  right  to  visit  all  the  public 
libraries  and  museums,  parks  and  gardens. 

In  other  words,  I  think  the  laboring  man  should  have 
the  same  rights  on  Sundays,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  that 
wealthy  people  have  on  other  days.  The  man  of  wealth 
has  leisurCo  He  can  attend  these  places  on  any  day  he 
may  desire;  but  necessity  being  the  master  of  the  poor  man, 
Sunday  is  his  one  day  for  such  a  purpose.  For  men  of 
wealth  to  close  the  museums  and  libraries  on  that  day, 
shows  that  they  have  either  a  mistaken  idea  as  to  the  well- 
being  of  their  fellow-men,  or  that  they  care  nothing  about 
the  rights  of  any  except  the  wealthy. 

Personally,  I  have  no  sort  of  patience  with  the  theological 
snivel  and  drivel  about  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath.  I 
do  not  understand  why  they  do  not  accept  the  words  of 
their  own  Christ,  namely,  that  "the  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath." 

The  hypocrites  of  Judea  were  great  sticklers  for  the 
Sabbath,  and  the  orthodox  Christians  of  New  York  are  ex- 
actly the  same.  My  own  opinion  is  that  a  man  who  has 
been  at  work  all  the  week,  in  the  dust  and  heat,  can  hardly 
afford  to  waste  his  Sunday  in  hearing  an  orthodox  sermon 
— a  sermon  that  gives  him  the  cheerful  intelligence  that  his 
chances  for  being  damned  are  largely  in  the  majority.  I 
think  it  is  far  better  for  the  workingman  to  go  out  with  hi« 
family  in  the  park,  into  the  woods,  to  some  German  garden, 


INTERVIEWS.  449 

where  he  can  hear  the  music  of  Wagner,  or  even  the 
waltzes  of  Strauss,  or  to  take  a  boat  and  go  down  to  the 
shore  of  the  sea.  I  think  that  in  summer  a  few  waves  of 
the  ocean  are  far  more  refreshing  than  all  the  orthodox 
sermons  of  the  worldo 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  the  preachers  leave  the 
city  in  the  summer  and  let  the  Devil  do  his  worst.  Whether 
it  is  believed  that  the  Devil  has  less  power  in  warm  weather, 
I  do  not  know.  But  I  do  know  that,  as  the  mercury  rises^ 
the  anxiety  about  souls  decreases,  and  the  hotter  New  York 
becomes,  the  cooler  hell  seems  to  be. 

I  want  the  workingman,  no  matter  what  he  works  at — 
whether  at  doctoring  people,  or  trying  law  suits,  or  run- 
ning for  office — to  have  a  real  good  time  on  Sunday.  He, 
of  course,  must  be  careful  not  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of 
others.  He  ought  not  to  play  draw-poker  on  the  steps  of  a 
church ;  neither  should  he  stone  a  Chinese  funeral,  nor  go  to 
any  excesses  ;  but  all  the  week  long  he  should  have  it  in  his 
mind  :  Next  Sunday  I  am  going  to  have  a  good  time.  My 
wife  and  I  and  the  children  are  going  to  have  a  happy 
time.  I  am  going  out  with  the  girl  I  like  ;  or  my  young 
man  is  going  to  take  me  to  the  picnic.  And  this  thought, 
and  this  hope,  of  having  a  good  time  on  Sunday — of  seeing 
some  great  pictures  at  the  Metropolitan  Art  Gallery — to- 
gether with  a  good  many  bad  ones — will  make  work  easy 
and  lighten  the  burden  on  the  shoulders  of  toil. 

I  take  a  great  interest,  too,  in  the  working  women — par- 
ticularly in  the  working  woman.  I  think  that  every 
workingman  should  see  to  it  that  every  working  woman  has 
a  good  time  on  Sunday.  I  am  no  preacher.  All  I  want  is 
that  everybody  should  enjoy  himself  in  a  way  that  he  will 
not  and  does  not  interfere  with  the  enjoyment  of  others. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  we  cannot  trust  the  people. 
Our  Government  is  based  upon  the  idea  that  the  people 
can  be  trusted,  and  those  who  say  that  the  workingmett 


450  INTERVIEWS. 

cannot  be  trusted,  do  not  believe  in  Republican  or  Demo- 
cratic institutions.  For  one,  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  trust 
the  working  people  of  the  country.  I  do,  every  day.  I 
trust  the  engineers  on  the  cars  and  steamers.  I  trust  the 
builders  of  houses.  I  trust  all  laboring  men  every  day  of 
my  life,  and  if  the  laboring  people  of  the  country  were  not 
trustworthy — if    they   were  malicious  or   dishonest — life 

would  not  be  worth  living. — The  journal.  New  York,  June  8, 1800. 

THE  WEST  AND  SOUTH. 

QtiesHon,  Do  you  think  the  South  will  ever  equal  or  sur- 
pass the  West  in  point  of  prosperity  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  The  West  has  better  soil  and  more  of 
the  elements  of  wealth.  It  is  not  liable  to  yellow  fever ;  its 
rivers  have  better  banks  ;  the  people  have  more  thrift,  more 
enterprise,  more  political  hospitality;  education  is  more 
general ;  the  people  are  more  inventive ;  better  traders,  and, 
besides  all  this,  there  is  no  race  problem.  The  Southern 
people  are  what  their  surroundings  made  them,  and  the 
influence  of  slaverj^  has  not  yet  died  out.  In  my  judgment, 
the  climate  of  the  West  is  superior  to  that  of  the  South. 
The  West  has  good,  cold  winters,  and  they  make  people  a 
little  more  frugal,  prudent  and  industrious.  Winters  make 
good  homes,  cheerful  firesides,  and,  after  all,  civilization 
commences  at  the  hearthstone.  The  South  is  growing,  and 
will  continue  to  grow,  but  it  will  never  equal  the  West 
The  West  is  destined  to  dominate  the  Republic. 

Question,  Do  you  consider  the  new  ballot-law  adapted  to 
the  needs  of  our  system  of  elections.  If  not,  in  what  par- 
ticulars does  it  require  amendment  ? 

Answer.  Personally  I  like  the  brave  and  open  way.  The 
secret  ballot  lacks  courage.  I  want  people  to  know  just 
how  I  vote.  The  old  viva  voce  way  was  manly  and  looked 
well.  Every  American  should  be  taught  that  he  votes  as  a 
sovereign — an  emperor — and  he  should  exercise  the  right 


INTERVIBWS.  451 

in  a  kingly  way.  But  if  we  must  have  the  secret  ballot, 
then  let  it  be  secret  indeed,  and  let  the  crowd  stand  back 
while  the  king  votes. 

Question,  What  do  you  think  of  the  service  pension 
movement  ? 

Answer,  I  see  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  talk  here  in 
Indiana  about  this  service  pension  movement.  It  has 
always  seemed  to  me  that  the  pension  fund  has  been  frit- 
tered away.  Of  what  use  is  it  to  give  a  man  two  or  three 
dollars  a  month  ?  If  a  man  is  rich  why  should  he  have  any 
pension  ?  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  give  pensions  only 
to  the  needy,  and  then  give  them  enough  to  support  them. 
If  the  man  was  in  the  army  a  day  or  a  month,  and  was  un- 
injured, and  can  make  his  own  living,  or  has  enough,  why 
should  he  have  a  pension  ?  I  believe  in  giving  to  the 
wounded  and  disabled  and  poor,  with  a  liberal  hand,  but 
not  to  the  rich.  I  know  that  the  nation  could  not  pay  the 
men  who  fought  and  suffered.  There  is  not  money  enough 
in  the  world  to  pay  the  heroes  for  what  they  did  and 
endured — but  there  is  money  enough  to  keep  every  wounded 
and  diseased  soldier  from  want.  There  is  money  enough 
to  fill  the  lives  of  those  who  gave  limbs  or  health  for  the 
sake  of  the  Republic,  with  comfort  and  happiness.  I  would 
also  like  to  see  the  poor  soldier  taken  care  of  whether  he 
was  wounded  or  not,  but  I  see  no  propriety  in  giving  to 

those  who  do  not  need. — The  journal,  Indianapolis,  Indiana,  June  21, 
1890. 

THE  WESTMINSTER  CREED  AND  OTHER  SUBJECTS. 

Question,  What  do  you  think  of  the  revision  of  the  West- 
minster creed  ? 

Answer,  I  think  that  the  intelligence  and  morality  of  the 
age  demand  the  revision.  The  Westminster  creed  is  in- 
famous. It  makes  God  an  infinite  monster,  and  men  the 
most  miserable  of  beings.  That  creed  has  made  millions 
insane.      It  has    furrowed    countless    cheeks  with  tears. 


452 


INTERVIEWS. 


Under  its  influence  the  sentiments  and  sympathies  of  the 
heart  have  withered.  This  creed  was  written  by  the  worst 
of  men.  The  civilized  Presbyterians  do  not  believe  it.  The 
intelligent  clergyman  will  not  preach  it,  and  all  good  men 
who  understand  it,  hold  it  in  abhorrence.  But  the  fact  is, 
that  it  is  just  as  good  as  the  creed  of  any  orthodox  church. 
All  these  creeds  must  be  revised.  Young  America  will  not 
be  consoled  by  the  doctrine  of  eternal  pain.  Yes,  the  creeds 
must  be  revised  or  the  churches  will  be  closed. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  influence  of  the  press 
on  religion  ? 

Answer.  If  you  mean  on  orthodox  religion,  then  I  say  the 
press  is  helping  to  destroy  it.  Just  to  the  extent  that  the 
press  is  intelligent  and  fearless,  it  is  and  must  be  the  enemy 
of  superstition.  Every  fact  in  the  universe  is  the  enemy 
of  every  falsehood.  The  press  furnishes  food  for,  and  ex- 
cites thought.  This  tends  to  the  destruction  of  the  miracu- 
lous and  absurd.  I  regard  the  press  as  the  friend  of  prog- 
ress and  consequently  the  foe  of  orthodox  religion.  The 
old  dogmas  do  not  make  the  people  happy.  What  is  called 
religion  is  full  of  fear  and  grief.  The  clergy  are  always 
talking  about  dying,  about  the  grave  and  eternal  pain. 
They  do  not  add  to  the  sunshine  of  life.  If  they  could  have 
their  way  all  the  birds  would  stop  singing,  the  flowers 
would  lose  their  color  and  perfume,  and  all  the  owls  would 
sit  on  dead  trees  and  hoot,  "  Broad  is  the  road  that  leads  to 
death." 

Question.  If  you  should  write  your  last  sentence  on  re- 
ligious topics  what  would  be  your  closing  ? 

A?tswer.  I  now  in  the  presence  of  death  affirm  and  re- 
affirm the  truth  of  all  that  I  have  said  against  the  super- 
stitions of  the  world.  I  would  say  at  least  that  much  on 
the  subject  with  my  last  breath. 

Question.  What,  in  your  opinion,  will  be  Browning's  posi- 
tion in  the  literature  of  the  future  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  453 

Answer,  Lower  than  at  present.  Mrs.  Browning  was  far 
greater  than  her  husband.  He  never  wrote  anything  com- 
parable to  "Mother  and  Poet."  Browning  lacked  form, 
and  that  is  as  great  a  lack  in  poetry  as  it  is  in  sculpture. 
He  was  the  author  of  some  great  lines,  some  great  thoughts, 
but  he  was  obscure,  uneven  and  was  always  mixing  the 
poetic  with  the  common  place.  To  me  he  cannot  be  com- 
pared with  Shelley  or  Keats,  or  with  our  own  Walt  Whit- 
man. Of  course  poetry  cannot  be  very  well  discussed. 
Each  man  knows  what  he  likes,  what  touches  his  heart  and 
what  words  burst  into  blossom,  but  he  cannot  judge  for 
others.  After  one  has  read  Shakespeare,  Burns  and  Byron, 
and  Shelley  and  Keats;  after  he  had  read  the  "Sonnets"  and 
the  "Daisy"  and  the  "  Prisoner  of  Chillon  "  and  the  "Sky- 
lark" and  the  "  Ode  to  the  Grecian  Urn  "—the  "  Flight  of 
the  Duchess"  seems  a  little  weak. — The  Post'Bxpress,v>o(i\xss>%Qx, 

New  York,  June  23,  1890. 

SHAKESPEARE  AND  BACON. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Ignatius  Donnelly 
as  a  literary  man  irrespective  of  his  Baconian  theory? 

Answer.  I  know  that  Mr.  Donnelly  enjoys  the  reputa- 
tion of  being  a  man  of  decided  ability  and  that  he  is  re- 
garded »by  many  as  a  great  orator.  He  is  known  to  me 
through  his  Baconian  theory,  and  in  that  of  course  I  have 
no  confidence.  It  is  nearly  as  ingenious  as  absurd.  He  has 
spent  great  time,  and  has  devoted  much  curious  learning  to 
the  subject,  and  has  at  last  succeeded  in  convincing  himself 
that  Shakespeare  claimed  that  which  he  did  not  write,  and 
that  Bacon  wrote  that  which  he  did  not  claim.  But  to  me 
the  theory  is  without  the  slightest  foundation. 

QtcesHon.  Mr.  Donnelly  asks  :  "Can  you  imagine  the 
author  of  such  grand  productions  retiring  to  that  mud 
house  in  Stratford  to  live  without  a  single  copy  of  the 
quarto  that  has  made  his  name  famous  ? "    What  do  you  say  ? 


454  INTERVIEWS. 

Answer.  Yes;  I  can.  Shakespeare  died  in  1616,  and  the 
quarto  was  published  in  1623,  seven  years  after  he  was 
dead.  Under  these  circumstances  I  think  Shakespeare 
ought  to  be  excused,  even  by  those  who  attack  him  with 
the  greatest  bitterness,  for  not  having  a  copy  of  the  book. 
There  is,  however,  another  side  to  this.  Bacon  did  not  die 
until  long  after  the  quarto  was  published.  Did  he  have  a 
copy  ?  Did  he  mention  the  copy  in  his  will  ?  Did  he  ever 
mention  the  quarto  in  any  letter,  essay,  or  in  any  way  ? 
He  left  a  library,  was  there  a  copy  of  the  plays  in  it  ?  Did 
he  leave  any  manuscript  play  ?  Has  there  ever  been  found 
a  line  from  any  play  or  sonnet  in  his  handwriting  ?  Bacon 
left  his  writings,  his  papers,  all  in  perfect  order,  but  no 
plays,  no  sonnets,  said  nothing  about  plays — claimed  noth- 
ing in  their  behalf.  This  is  the  other  side.  Now,  there  is 
still  another  thing.  The  edition  of  1623  was  published  by 
Shakespeare's  friends,  Heminge  and  Condell.  They  knew 
him — had  been  with  him  for  years,  and  they  collected  most 
of  his  plays  and  put  them  in  book  form. 

Ben  Jonson  wrote  a  preface,  in  which  he  placed  Shakes- 
peare above  all  the  other  poets — declared  that  he  was  for 
all  time. 

The  edition  of  1623  was  gotten  up  by  actors,  by  the 
friends  and  associates  of  Shakespeare,  vouched  for  by 
dramatic  writers — by  those  who  knew  him.  That  is 
enough. 

Question.  How  do  you  explain  the  figure:  "His  soul, 
like  Mazeppa,  was  lashed  naked  to  the  wild  horse  of  every 
fear  and  love  and  hate."  Mr.  Donnelly  does  not  under- 
stand you  ? 

Answer.  It  hardly  seems  necessary  to  explain  a  thing  as 
simple  and  plain  as  that.  Men  are  carried  away  by  some 
fierce  passion — carried  away  in  spite  of  themselves  as 
Mazeppa  was  carried  by  the  wild  horse  to  which  he  was 
lashed.     Whether  the  comparison  is  good  or  bad  it  is  at 


INTERVIEWS.  455 

least  plain.  Nothing  could  tempt  me  to  call  Mr.  Donnelly^s 
veracity  in  question.  He  says  that  he  does  not  understand 
the  sentence  and  I  most  cheerfully  admit  that  he  tells  the 
exact  truth. 

Question,  Mr.  Donnelly  says  that  you  said  :  *'  Where  there 
is  genius,  education  seems  almost  unnecessary,"  and  he  de- 
nounces your  doctrine  as  the  most  abominable  doctrine  ever 
taught.    What  have  you  to  say  to  that  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  never  made  the  remark.  In 
the  next  place,  it  may  be  well  enough  to  ask  what  education 
is.  Much  is  taught  in  colleges  that  is  of  no  earthly  use ; 
much  is  taught  that  is  hurtful.  There  are  thousands  of  ed- 
ucated men  who  never  graduated  from  any  college  or  uni- 
versity. Every  observant,  thoughtful  man  is  educating 
himself  as  long  as  he  lives.  Men  are  better  than  books. 
Observation  is  a  great  teacher.  A  man  of  talent  learns 
slowly.  He  does  not  readily  see  the  necessary  relation  that 
one  fact  bears  to  another.  A  man  of  genius,  learning  one 
fact,  instantly  sees  hundreds  of  others.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  such  a  man  to  attend  college.  The  world  is  his  uni- 
versity. Every  man  he  meets  is  a  book — every  woman  a 
volume — every  fact  a  torch — and  so  without  the  aid  of  the 
so-called  schools  he  rises  to  the  very  top.  Shakespeare  was 
such  a  man. 

Question,  Mr.  Donnelly  says  that :  "  The  biggest  myth 
ever  on  earth  was  Shakespeare,  and  that  if  Francis  Bacon 
had  said  to  the  people,  I,  Francis  Bacon,  a  gentleman  of 
gentlemen,  have  been  taking  in  secret  my  share  of  the  cop- 
pers and  shillings  taken  at  the  door  of  those  low  playhouses. 
he  would  have  been  ruined.  If  he  had  put  the  plays  forth 
simply  as  poetry  it  would  have  ruined  his  legal  reputation." 
What  do  you  think  of  this  ? 

Answer,  I  hardly  think  that  Shakespeare  was  or  is  a 
myth.  He  was  certainly  born,  married,  lived  in  London, 
belonged  to  a  company  of  actors ;  went  back  to  Stratford, 


456  INTERVIEWS. 

where  he  had  a  family,  and  died.  All  these  things  do  not 
as  a  rule  happen  to  myths.  In  addition  to  this,  those  who 
knew  him  believed  him  to  be  the  author  of  the  plays. 
Bacon's  friends  never  suspected  him.  I  do  not  think  it  would 
have  hurt  Bacon  to  have  admitted  that  he  wrote  "  Lear"  and 
"  Othello,"  and  that  he  was  getting  "  coppers  and  shillings" 
to  which  he  was  justly  entitled.  Certainly  not  as  much  as 
for  him  to  have  written  this,  which  in  fact,  though  not  in 
exact  form,  he  did  write:  **I,  Francis  Bacon,  a  gentleman  of 
gentlemen,  have  been  taking  coppers  and  shillings  to  which 
I  was  not  entitled — but  which  I  received  as  bribes  while  sit- 
ting as  a  judge."  He  has  been  excused  for  two  reasons. 
First,  because  his  salary  was  small,  and,  second,  because  it 
was  the  custom  for  judges  to  receive  presents. 

Bacon  was  a  lawyer.  He  was  charged  with  corruption — 
with  having  taken  bribes,  with  having  sold  his  decisions.  He 
knew  what  the  custom  was  and  knew  how  small  his  salary 
was.  But  he  did  not  plead  the  custom  in  his  defence.  He 
did  not  mention  the  smallness  of  the  salary.  He  confessed 
that  he  was  guilty — as  charged.  His  confession  was  deemed 
too  general  and  he  was  called  upon  by  the  lords  to  make  a 
specific  confession.  This  he  did.  He  specified  the  cases 
in  which  he  had  received  the  money  and  told  how  much,  and 
begged  for  mercy.  He  did  not  make  his  confession,  as  Mr. 
Donnelly  is  reported  to  have  said,  to  get  his  fine  remittedo 
The  confession  was  made  before  the  fine  was  imposed. 

Neither  do  I  think  that  the  theatre  in  which  the  plays  of 
Shakespeare  were  represented  could  or  should  be  called  a 
"low  play  house."  The  fact  that  "  Othello,"  ''  Lear,"  "Ham- 
let," "  Julius  Caesar,"  and  the  other  great  dramas  were  first 
played  in  that  playhouse  made  it  the  greatest  building  in  the 
world.  The  gods  themselves  should  have  occupied  seats  in  that 
theatre,  where  for  the  first  time  the  greatest  productions  of  the 

human  mind  were  put  upon  the  stage. — The  Tribune,  Minneapolis, 
Minn.,  May  81, 1801. 


GROWING    OLD    GRACEFULLY,  AND 
PRESBYTERIANISM. 

Question,  How  have  you  acquired  the  art  of  growing  old 
gracefully  ? 

Answer.  It  is  very  hard  to  live  a  great  while  without 
getting  old,  and  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  die  just  to  keep 
young.  It  is  claimed  that  people  with  certain  incomes  live 
longer  than  those  who  have  to  earn  their  bread.  But  the  in- 
come people  have  a  stupid  kind  of  life,  and  though  they  may 
hang  on  a  good  many  years,  they  can  hardly  be  said  to  do 
much  real  living.  The  best  you  can  say  is,  not  that  they 
lived  so  many  years,  but  that  it  took  them  so  many  years 
to  die.  Some  people  imagine  that  regular  habits  prolong 
life,  but  that  depends  somewhat  on  the  habits.  Only  the 
other  day  I  read  an  article  written  by  a  physician,  in  which 
regular  habits — good  ones,  were  declared  to  be  quite 
dangerous. 

Where  life  is  perfectly  regular,  all  the  wear  and  tear 
comes  on  the  same  nerves — every  blow  falls  on  the  same 
place.  Variety,  even  in  a  bad  direction,  is  a  great  relief. 
But  living  long  has  nothing  to  do  with  getting  old  grace- 
fully. Good  nature  is  a  great  enemy  of  wrinkles,  and 
cheerfulness  helps  the  complexion.  If  we  could  only  keep 
from  being  annoyed  at  little  things,  it  would  add  to  the 
luxury  of  living.  Great  sorrows  are  few,  and  after  all  do 
not  affect  us  as  much  as  the  many  irritating,  almost  noth- 
ings that  attack  from  every  side.  The  traveler  is  bothered 
more  with  dust  than  mountains.  It  is  a  great  thing  to 
have  an  object  in  life — something  to  work  for  and  think 
for.  If  a  man  thinks  only  about  himself,  his  own  comfort, 
his  own  importance,  he  will  not  grow  old  gracefully.    More 

(457) 


458  INTERVIEWS. 

and  more  his  spirit,  small  and  mean,  will  leave  its  impress 
on  his  face,  and  especially  in  his  eyes.  You  look  at  him 
and  feel  that  there  is  no  jewel  in  the  casket;  that  a  shriv- 
eled soul  is  living  in  a  tumble-down  house. 

The  body  gets  its  grace  from  the  mind.  I  suppose  that 
we  are  all  more  or  less  responsible  for  our  looks.  Perhaps 
the  thinker  of  great  thoughts,  the  doer  of  noble  deeds, 
moulds  his  features  in  harmony  with  his  life. 

Probably  the  best  medicine,  the  greatest  beautifier  in  the 
world,  is  to  make  somebody  else  happy,  I  have  noticed 
that  good  mothers  have  faces  as  serene  as  a  cloudless  day 
in  June,  and  the  older  the  serener.  It  is  a  great  thing  to 
know  the  relative  importance  of  things,  and  those  who  do, 
get  the  most  out  of  life.  Those  who  take  an  interest  in 
what  they  see,  and  keep  their  minds  busy  are  always  young. 

The  other  day  I  met  a  blacksmith  who  has  given  much 
attention  to  geology  and  fossil  remains.  He  told  me  how 
happy  he  was  in  his  excursions.  He  was  nearly  seventy 
years  old,  and  yet  he  had  the  enthusiasm  of  a  boy.  He  said 
he  had  some  very  fine  specimens,  "  but,"  said  he,  "  nearly 
every  night  I  dream  of  finding  perfect  ones." 

That  man  will  keep  young  as  long  as  he  lives.  As  long 
as  a  man  lives  he  should  study.  Death  alone  has  the  right 
to  dismiss  the  school.  No  man  can  get  too  much  knowl- 
edge. In  that,  he  can  have  all  the  avarice  he  wants,  but  he 
can  get  too  much  property.  If  the  business  men  would  stop 
when  they  get  enough,  they  might  have  a  chance  to  grow 
old  gracefully.  But  the  most  of  them  go  on  and  on,  until, 
like  the  old  stage  horse,  stiff  and  lame,  they  drop  dead  in 
the  road.  The  intelligent,  the  bind,  the  reasonably  con- 
tented, the  courageous,  the  self-poised,  grow  old  grace- 
fully. 

Question.  Are  not  the  restraints  to  free  religious  thought 
being  worn  away,  as  the  world  grows  older,  and  will  not 
the  recent  attacks  of  the  religious  press  and  pulpit  upon  the 


INTERVIEWS.  459 

tmorthodoxy  of  Dr,  Briggs,  Rev.  R.  Heber  Newton  and  the 
prospective  Episcopal  bishop  of  Massachusetts,  Dr.  Phillips 
Brooks,  and  others,  have  a  tendency  still  further  to  extend 
this  freedom  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  the  world  is  growing  somewhat  wiser 
— getting  more  sense  day  by  day.  It  is  amazing  to  me  that 
any  human  being  or  beings  ever  wrote  the  Presbyterian 
creed.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd — more  barbaric  than 
that  creedo  It  makes  man  the  sport  of  an  infinite  monster, 
and  yet  good  people,  men  and  women  of  ability,  who  have 
gained  eminence  in  almost  every  department  of  human 
effort,  stand  by  this  creed  as  if  it  were  filled  with  wis- 
dom and  goodness.  They  really  think  that  a  good  God 
damns  his  poor  ignorant  children  just  for  his  own  glory, 
and  that  he  sends  people  to  perdition,  not  for  any  evil  in 
them,  but  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice.  Dr.  Briggs 
has  been  wicked  enough  to  doubt  this  phase  of  God's 
goodness,  and  Dr.  Bridgman  was  heartless  enough  to  drop 
a  tear  in  hell.  Of  course  they  have  no  idea  of  what  justice 
really  is. 

The  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  that  has  just  ad- 
journed stood  by  Calvinism.  The  "  Five  Points  "  are  as  sharp 
as  ever.  The  members  of  that  assembly — most  of  them — 
find  all  their  happiness  in  the  "creed."  They  need  no  other 
amusement.  If  they  feel  blue  they  read  about  totaT 
depravity — and  cheer  up.  In  moments  of  great  sorrow  they 
think  of  the  tale  of  non-elect  infants,  and  their  hearts  over- 
flow with  a  kind  of  holy  joy. 

They  cannot  imagine  why  people  wish  to  attend  the 
theatre  when  they  can  read  the  '*  Confession  of  Faith,"  or 
why  they  should  feel  like  dancing  after  they  do  read  it. 

It  is  very  sad  to  think  of  the  young  men  and  women  who 
have  been  eternally  ruined  by  witnessing  the  plays  of 
Shakespeare,  and  it  is  also  sad  to  think  of  the  young  people, 
foolish  enough  to  be  happy,  keeping  time  to  the  pulse  of 


460  INTERVIEWS. 

music,  waltzing  to  hell  in  loving  pairs — all  for  tlie  glory  of 
God,  and  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious  justice.  I  think,  too, 
of  the  thousands  of  men  and  women  who,  while  listening  to 
the  music  of  Wagner,  have  absolutely  forgotten  the  Presby- 
terian creed,  and  who  for  a  little  while  have  been  as  happy 
as  if  the  creed  had  never  been  written.  Tear  down  the 
theatres,  burn  the  opera  houses,  break  all  musical  in- 
struments, and  then  let  us  go  to  church. 

I  am  not  at  all  surprised  that  the  General  Assembly  took 
up  this  progressive  euchre  matter.  The  word  "progres- 
sive "  is  always  obnoxious  to  the  ministers.  Euchre  under 
another  name  might  go.  Of  course,  progressive  euchre  is  a 
kind  of  gambling.  I  knew  a  young  man,  or  rather  heard 
of  him,  who  won  at  progressive  euchre  a  silver  spoon. 
At  first  this  looks  like  nothing,  almost  innocent,  and  yet 
that  spoon,  gotten  for  nothing,  sowed  the  seed  of  gambling 
in  that  young  man's  brain.  He  became  infatuated  with 
euchre,  then  with  cards  in  general,  then  with  draw-poker  in 
particular, — then  into  Wall  Street.  He  is  now  a  total 
wreck,  and  has  the  impudence  to  say  that  it  was  all  "pre- 
ordained," Think  of  the  thousands  and  millions  that  are 
being  demoralized  by  games  of  chance,  by  marbles — when 
they  play  for  keeps —  by  billiards  and  croquet,  by  fox  and 
geese,  authors,  halma,  tiddledy  winks  and  pigs  in  clover.  In 
all  these  miserable  games,  is  the  infamous  element  of  chance 
— the  raw  material  of  gambling.  Probably  none  of  these 
games  could  be  played  exclusively  for  the  glory  of  God.  I 
agree  with  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  if  the  creed 
is  true,  why  should  anyone  try  to  amuse  himself?  If  there 
is  a  hell,  and  all  of  us  are  going  there,  there  should  never 
be  another  smile  on  the  human  face.  We  should  spend 
our  days  in  sighs,  our  nights  in  tears.  The  world  should 
go  insane.  We  find  strange  combinations — good  men  with 
bad  creeds,  and  bad  men  with  good  ones — and  so  the  great 

world  stumbles  along. — The  Blade,  Toledo,  Ohio,  June  4, 1891. 


CREEDS. 

There  is  a  natural  desire  on  the  part  of  every  intelligent 
human  being  to  harmonize  his  information — to  make  his 
theories  agree — in  other  words,  to  make  what  he  knows,  or 
thinks  he  knows,  in  one  department,  agree  and  harmonize 
Vflth  what  he  knows,  or  thinks  he  knows,  in  every  other 
department  of  human  knowledge. 

The  human  race  has  not  advanced  in  line,  neither  has  it 
advanced  in  all  departments  with  the  same  rapidity.  It  is 
with  the  race  as  it  is  with  an  individual,  A  man  may  turn 
his  entire  attention  to  some  one  subject — as,  for  instance,  to 
geology — and  neglect  other  sciences.  He  may  be  a  good 
geologist,  but  an  exceedingly  poor  astronomer ;  or  he  may 
know  nothing  of  politics  or  of  political  economy.  So  he 
may  be  a  successful  statesman  and  know  nothing  of  the- 
ology. But  if  a  man,  successful  in  one  direction,  takes  up 
some  other  question,  he  is  bound  to  use  the  knowledge  he 
has  on  one  subject  as  a  kind  of  standard  to  measure  what 
he  is  told  on  some  other  subject.  If  he  is  a  chemist,  it  will 
be  natural  for  him,  when  studying  some  other  question,  to 
use  what  he  knows  in  chemistry ;  that  is  to  say,  he  will  ex- 
pect to  find  cause  and  effect  everywhere — succession  and 
resemblance.  He  will  say :  It  must  be  in  all  other  sciences 
as  in  chemistry — there  must  be  no  chance.  The  elements  have 
no  caprice.  Iron  is  always  the  same.  Gold  does  not  change. 
Prussic  acid  is  always  poison — it  has  no  freaks.  So  he  will 
reason  as  to  all  facts  in  nature.  He  will  be  a  believer  in 
the  atomic  integrity  of  all  matter,  in  the  persistence  of  grav- 
itation. Being  so  trained,  and  so  convinced,  his  tendency 
will  be  to  weigh  what  is  called  new  information  in  the  same 
scales  that  he  has  been  using. 
Now,  for  the  application  ©f  this.     Progress  in  religion  is 

(461) 


462  INTERVIEWS. 

the  slowest,  because  man  is  kept  back  by  sentimentality,  by 
the  efforts  of  parents,  by  old  associations.  A  thousand  un- 
seen tendrils  are  twining  about  him  that  he  must  necessarily 
break  if  he  advances.  In  other  departments  of  knowledge 
inducements  are  held  out  and  rewards  are  promised  to  the 
one  who  does  succeed — to  the  one  who  really  does  advance 
— to  the  man  who  discovers  new  facts.  But  in  religion, 
instead  of  rewards  being  promised,  threats  are  made.  The 
man  is  told  that  he  must  not  advance ;  that  if  he  takes  a 
step  forward,  it  is  at  the  peril  of  his  soul ;  that  if  he  thinks 
and  investigates,  he  is  in  danger  of  exciting  the  wrath  of 
God.  Consequently  religion  has  been  of  the  slowest  growth. 
Now,  in  most  departments  of  knowledge,  man  has  advanced ; 
and  coming  back  to  the  original  statement — a  desire  to  har- 
monize all  that  we  know — there  is  a  growing  desire  on  the 
part  of  intelligent  men  to  have  a  religion  fit  to  keep  company 
with  the  other  sciences. 

Our  creeds  were  made  in  times  of  ignorance.  They 
suited  very  well  a  flat  world,  and  a  God  who  lived  in  the 
sky  just  above  us  and  who  used  the  lightning  to  destroy 
his  enemies.  This  God  was  regarded  much  as  a  savage  re- 
garded the  head  of  his  tribe — as  one  having  the  right  to 
reward  and  punish.  And  this  God,  being  much  greater 
than  a  chief  of  the  tribe,  could  give  greater  rewards  and  in- 
flict greater  punishments.  They  knew  that  the  ordinary 
chief,  or  the  ordinary  king,  punished  the  slightest  offences 
with  death.  They  also  knew  that  these  chiefs  and  kings 
tortured  their  victims  as  long  as  the  victims  could  bear  the 
torture.  So  when  they  described  their  God,  they  gave  to 
this  God  power  to  keep  the  tortured  victim  alive  forever — 
because  they  knew  that  the  earthly  chief,  or  the  earthly 
king,  would  prolong  the  life  of  the  tortured  for  the  sake  of 
increasing  the  agonies  of  the  victim.  In  those  savage  days 
they  regarded  punishment  as  the  only  means  of  protecting 
society.    In  consequence  of  this  they  built  heaven  and  hell 


INTERVIEWS.  463 

on  an  earthly  plan,  and  they  put  God — that  is  to  say  the 
chief,  that  is  to  say  the  king — on  a  throne  like  an  earthly 
king. 

Of  course,  these  views  were  all  ignorant  and  barbaric; 
but  in  that  blessed  day  their  geology  and  astronomy  were  on  a 
par  with  their  theology.  There  was  a  harmony  in  all  de- 
partments of  knowledge,  or  rather  of  ignorance.  Since  that 
time  there  has  been  a  great  advance  made  in  the  idea  of 
government — the  old  idea  being  that  the  right  to  govern 
came  from  God  to  the  king,  and  from  the  king  to  the 
people.  Now  intelligent  people  believe  that  the  source  of 
authority  has  been  changed,  and  that  all  just  powers  of 
government  are  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. 
So  there  has  been  a  great  advance  in  the  philosophy  of 
punishment — in  the  treatment  of  criminals.  So,  too,  in 
all  the  sciences.  The  earth  is  no  longer  flat;  heaven  is  not 
immediately  above  us  ;  the  universe  has  been  infinitely  en- 
larged, and  we  have  at  last  found  that  our  earth  is  but  a 
grain  of  sand,  a  speck  on  the  great  shore  of  the  infinite. 
Consequently  there  is  a  discrepancy,  a  discord,  a  contra- 
diction between  our  theology  and  the  other  sciences.  Men 
of  intelligence  feel  this.  Dr.  Briggs  concluded  that  a  per- 
fectly good  and  intelligent  God  could  not  have  created 
billions  of  sentient  beings,  knowing  that  they  were  to  be 
eternally  miserable.  No  man  could  do  such  a  thing,  had  he 
the  power,  without  being  infinitely  malicious.  Dr.  Briggs 
began  to  have  a  little  hope  for  the  human  race — began  to 
think  that  maybe  God  is  better  than  the  creed  describes 
him. 

And  right  here  it  may  be  well  enough  to  remark  that  no 
one  has  ever  been  declared  a  heretic  for  thinking  God  bad. 
Heresy  has  consisted  in  thinking  God  better  than  the  church 
said  he  was.  The  man  who  said  God  will  damn  nearly 
everybody,  was  orthodox.  The  man  who  said  God  will  save 
everybody,  was  denounced  as  a  blaspheming  wretch,  as  one 
who  assailed  and  maligned  the  character  of  God.     I  can 


464  INTERVIEWS. 

remember  when  the  Universalists  were  denounced  as  vehe« 
mently  and  maliciously  as  the  Atheists  are  to-day. 

Now,  Dr.  Briggs  is  undoubtedly  an  intelligent  man.  He 
knows  that  nobody  on  the  earth  knows  who  wrote  the  five 
books  of  Moses.  He  knows  that  they  were  not  written 
until  hundreds  of  years  after  Moses  was  dead.  He  knows 
that  two  or  more  persons  were  the  authors  of  Isaiah.  He 
knows  that  David  did  not  write  to  exceed  three  or  four  of 
the  Psalms.  He  knows  that  the  Book  of  Job  is  not  a  Jewish 
book.  He  knows  that  the  Songs  of  Solomon  were  not 
written  by  Solomon.  He  knows  that  the  Book  of  Eccle- 
siastes  was  written  by  a  Freethinker.  He  also  knows  that 
there  is  not  in  existence  to-day — so  far  as  anybody  knows — 
any  of  the  manuscripts  of  the  Old  or  New  Testaments. 

So  about  the  New  Testament,  Dr.  Briggs  knows  that 
nobody  lives  who  has  ever  seen  an  original  manuscript,  or 
who  ever  saw  anybody  that  did  see  one,  or  that  claims  to 
have  seen  one.  He  knows  that  nobody  knows  who  wrote 
Matthew  or  Mark  or  Luke  or  John.  He  knows  that  John 
did  not  write  John,  and  that  that  gospel  was  not  written 
until  long  after  John  was  dead.  He  knows  that  no  one 
knows  who  wrote  the  Hebrews.  He  also  knows  that  the 
Book  of  Revelation  is  an  insane  production.  Dr.  Briggs 
also  knows  the  way  in  which  these  books  came  to  be  ca- 
nonical, and  he  knows  that  the  way  was  no  more  binding 
than  a  resolution  passed  by  a  political  convention.  He 
also  knows  that  many  books  were  left  out  that  had  for 
centuries  equal  authority  with  those  that  were  put  in.  He 
also  knows  that  many  passages — and  the  very  passages  up- 
on which  many  churches  are  founded — are  interpolations. 
He  knows  that  the  last  chapter  of  Mark,  beginning  with 
the  sixteenth  verse  to  the  end,  is  an  interpolation ;  and  he 
also  knows  that  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark  nor  Luke  ever 
said  one  word  about  the  necessity  of  believing  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  or  of  believing  anything — not  one  word  about 


INTERVIEWS.  465 

believing  tlie  Bible  or  joining  the  church,  or  doing  any 
particular  thing  in  the  way  of  ceremony  to  insure  salvation. 
He  knows  that  according  to  Matthew,  God  agreed  to  for- 
give us  when  we  would  forgive  others.  Consequently  he 
knows  that  there  is  not  one  particle  of  what  is  called  mod- 
ern theology  in  Matthew,  Mark,  or  Luke.  He  knows  that 
the  trouble  commenced  in  John,  and  that  John  was  not 
written  until  probably  one  hundred  and  fifty  years — possi- 
bly two  hundred  years — after  Christ  was  dead.  So  he  also 
knows  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  interpola- 
tion ;  that  "  I  came  not  to  bring  peace  but  a  sword,"  if  not 
an  interpolation,  is  an  absolute  contradiction.  So,  too,  he 
knows  that  the  promise  to  forgive  in  heaven  what  the 
disciples  should  forgive  on  earth,  and  to  bind  in  heaven 
what  they  should  bind  on  earth,  is  an  interpolation ;  and 
that  if  it  is  not  an  interpolation,  it  is  without  the  slightest 
sense  in  fact. 

Knowing  these  things,  and  knowing,  in  addition  to  what 
I  have  stated,  that  there  are  thirty  thousand  or  forty  thou- 
sand mistakes  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  there  are  a  great 
many  contradictions  and  absurdities,  that  many  of  the  laws 
are  cruel  and  infamous,  and  could  have  been  made  only  by 
a  barbarous  people,  Dr.  Briggs  has  concluded  that,  after 
all,  the  torch  that  sheds  the  serenest  and  divinest  light  is 
the  human  reason,  and  that  we  must  investigate  the  Bible 
as  we  do  other  books.  At  least,  I  suppose  he  has  reached 
some  such  conclusion.  He  may  imagine  that  the  pure  gold 
of  inspiration  still  runs  through  the  quartz  and  porphyry 
of  ignorance  and  mistake,  and  that  all  we  have  to  do  is  to 
extract  the  shining  metal  by  some  process  that  may  be 
called  theological  smelting ;  and  if  so  I  have  no  fault  to 
find.  Dr.  Briggs  has  taken  a  step  in  advance — that  is  to 
say,  the  tree  is  growing,  and  when  the  tree  g^ows,  the 
bark  splits ;  when  the  new  leaves  come  the  old  leaves  are 
rotting  on  the  ground. 


466  INTERVIEWS. 

The  Presbyterian  creed  is  a  very  Dad  creed.  It  has  been 
the  stumbling-block,  not  only  of  the  head,  but  of  the  heart, 
for  many  generations.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is,  in  fact, 
worse  than  any  other  orthodox  creed  ;  but  the  bad  features 
are  stated  with  an  explicitness  and  emphasized  with  a 
candor  that  render  the  creed  absolutely  appalling.  It  is 
amazing  to  me  that  any  man  ever  wrote  it,  or  that  any  set 
of  men  ever  produced  it.  It  is  more  amazing  to  me  that 
any  human  being  ever  believed  it.  It  is  still  more  amazing 
that  any  human  being  ever  thought  it  wicked  not  to  be- 
lieve it.  It  is  more  amazing  still,  than  all  the  others  com- 
bined, that  any  human  being  ever  wanted  it  to  be  true. 

This  creed  is  a  relic  of  the  Middle  Ages.  It  has  in  it  the 
malice,  the  malicious  logic,  the  total  depravity,  the  utter 
heartlessness  of  John  Calvin,  and  it  gives  me  great  pleasure 
to  say  that  no  Presbyterian  was  ever  as  bad  as  his  creed. 
And  here  let  me  say,  as  I  have  said  many  times,  that  I  do 
not  hate  Presbyterians — because  among  them  I  count  some 
of  my  best  friends — but  I  hate  Presbyterianism.  And  I 
cannot  illustrate  this  any  better  than  by  saying,  I  do  not 
hate  a  man  because  he  has  the  rheumatism,  but  I  hate  the 
rheumatism  because  it  has  a  man. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  growing,  and  is  growing  be- 
cause, as  I  said  at  first,  there  is  a  universal  tendency  in  the 
mind  of  man  to  harmonize  all  that  he  knows  or  thinks  he 
knows.  This  growth  may  be  delayed.  The  buds  of  heresy 
may  be  kept  back  by  the  north  wind  of  Princeton  and  by 
the  early  frost  called  Patton.  In  spite  of  these  souvenirs 
of  the  Dark  Ages,  the  church  must  continue  to  grow.  The 
theologians  who  regard  theology  as  something  higher  than 
a  trade,  tend  toward  Liberalism.  Those  who  regard  preach- 
ing as  a  business,  and  the  inculcation  of  sentiment  as  a  trade, 
will  stand  by  the  lowest  possible  views.  They  will  cling  to 
the  letter  and  throw  away  the  spirit.  They  prefer  the  dead 
limb  to  a  new  bud  or  to  a  new  leaf.     They  want  no  more 


INTERVIEWS.  467 

sap.  They  delight  in  the  dead  tree,  in  its  unbending  na- 
ture, and  they  mistake  the  stiffness  of  death  for  the  vigor 
and  resistance  of  life. 

Now,  as  with  Dr.  Briggs,  so  with  Dr.  Bridgman,  although 
it  seems  to  me  that  he  has  simply  jumped  from  the  frying- 
pan  into  the  fire ;  and  why  he  should  prefer  the  Episcopal 
creed  to  the  Baptist,  is  more  than  I  can  imagine.  The 
Episcopal  creed  is,  in  fact,  just  as  bad  as  the  Presbyterian. 
It  calmly  and  with  unruffled  brow,  utters  the  sentence  of 
eternal  punishment  on  the  majority  of  the  human  race,  and 
the  Episcopalian  expects  to  be  happy  in  heaven,  with  his 
son  or  his  daughter  or  his  mother  or  wife  in  hell. 

Dr.  Bridgman  will  find  himself  exactly  in  the  position  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Newton,  provided  he  expresses  his  thought. 
But  I  account  for  the  Bridgmans  and  for  the  Newtons  by 
the  fact  that  there  is  still  sympathy  in  the  human  heart, 
and  that  there  is  still  intelligence  in  the  human  brain.  For 
my  part,  I  am  glad  to  see  this  growth  in  the  orthodox 
churches,  and  the  quicker  they  revise  their  creeds  the 
better. 

I  oppose  nothing  that  is  good  in  any  creed — I  at- 
tack only  that  which  is  ignorant,  cruel  and  absurd,  and  I 
make  the  attack  in  the  interest  of  human  liberty,  and  for  the 
sake  of  human  happiness. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  action  of  the  Pres- 
byterian General  Assembly  at  Detroit,  and  what  effect  do 
you  think  it  will  have  on  religious  growth  ? 

Answer.  That  General  Assembly  was  controlled  by  the 
orthodox  within  the  church,  by  the  strict  constructionists 
and  by  the  Calvinists  ;  by  gentlemen  who  not  only  believe 
the  creed,  not  only  believe  that  a  vast  majority  of  people 
are  going  to  hell,  but  are  really  glad  of  it ;  by  gentlemen 
who,  when  they  feel  a  little  blue,  read  about  total  depravity 
to  cheer  up,  and  when  they  think  of  the  mercy  of  God  as 
exhibited  in  their  salvation,  and   the  justice  of  God  as 


468  INTERVIEWS. 

illustrated  by  the  damnation  of  others,  their  hearts  burst 
into  a  kind  of  efflorescence  of  joy. 

These  gentlemen  are  opposed  to  all  kinds  of  amusements 
except  reading  the  Bible,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the 
creed,  and  listening  to  Presbyterian  sermons  and  prayers. 
All  these  things  they  regard  as  the  food  of  cheerfulness. 
They  warn  the  elect  against  theatres  and  operas,  dancing 
and  games  of  chance. 

Well,  if  their  doctrine  is  true,  there  ought  to  be  no 
theatres,  except  exhibitions  of  hell ;  there  ought  to  be  no 
operas,  except  where  the  music  is  a  succession  of  wails  for 
the  misfortunes  of  man.  If  their  doctrine  is  true,  I  do  not 
see  how  any  human  being  could  ever  smile  again — I  do  not 
see  how  a  mother  could  welcome  her  babe ;  everything  in 
nature  would  become  hateful ;  flowers  and  sunshine  would 
simply  tell  us  of  our  fate. 

My  doctrine  is  exactly  the  opposite  of  this.  Let  us 
enjoy  ourselves  every  moment  that  we  can.  The  love  of 
the  dramatic  is  universal.  The  stage  has  not  simply 
amused,  but  it  has  elevated  mankind.  The  greatest  genius 
of  our  world  poured  the  treasures  of  his  soul  into  the  drama. 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  girl  can  be  corrupted,  or  that  any 
man  can  be  injured,  by  becoming  acquainted  with  Isabella 
or  Miranda  or  Juliet  or  Imogen,  or  any  of  the  great  heroines 
of  Shakespeare. 

So  I  regard  the  opera  as  one  of  the  great  civilizers.  No 
one  can  listen  to  the  symphonies  of  Beethoven,  or  the  music 
of  Schubert,  without  receiving  a  benefit.  And  no  one  can 
hear  the  operas  of  Wagner  without  feeling  that  he  has  been 
ennobled  and  refined. 

Why  is  it  the  Presbyterians  are  so  opposed  to  music  in  this 
world,  and  yet  expect  to  have  so  much  in  heaven  ?  Is  not 
music  just  as  demoralizing  in  the  sky  as  on  the  earth,  and 
does  anybody  believe  that  Abraham  or  Isaac  or  Jacob,  evef 
played  any  music  comparable  to  Wagner  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  469 

Why  should  we  postpone  our  joy  to  another  world? 
Thousands  of  people  take  great  pleasure  in  dancing,  and  I 
say  let  them  dance.  Dancing  is  better  than  weeping  and 
wailing  over  a  theology  born  of  ignorance  and  supersti- 
tion. 

And  so  with  games  of  chance.  There  is  a  certain  pleasure 
in  playing  games,  and  the  pleasure  is  of  the  most  innocent 
character.  Let  all  these  games  be  played  at  home  and 
children  will  not  prefer  the  saloon  to  the  society  of  their 
parents.  I  believe  in  cards  and  billiards,  and  would  believe 
in  progressive  euchre,  were  it  more  of  a  game — the  great 
objection  to  it  is  its  lack  of  complexity.  My  idea  is  to  get 
what  little  happiness  you  can  out  of  this  life,  and  to  enjoy 
all  sunshine  that  breaks  through  the  clouds  of  misfortune. 
Life  is  poor  enough  at  best.  No  one  should  fail  to  pick  up 
every  jewel  of  joy  that  can  be  found  in  his  path.  Every 
one  should  be  as  happy  as  he  can,  provided  he  is  not  happy 
at  the  expense  of  another,  and  no  person  rightly  constituted 
can  be  happy  at  the  expense  of  another. 

So  let  us  get  all  we  can  of  good  between  the  cradle  and 
the  grave ;  all  that  we  can  of  the  truly  dramatic ;  all  that  we 
can  of  music ;  all  that  we  can  of  art ;  all  that  we  can  of  en- 
joyment ;  and  if,  when  death  comes,  that  is  the  end,  we 
have  at  least  made  the  best  of  this  life ;  and  if  there  be 
another  life,  let  us  make  the  best  of  that. 

I  am  doing  what  little  I  can  to  hasten  the  coming  of  the 
day  when  the  human  race  will  enjoy  liberty — not  simply  of 
body,  but  liberty  of  mind.  And  by  liberty  of  mind  I  mean 
freedom  from  superstition,  and  added  to  that,  the  intelli- 
gence to  find  out  the  conditions  of  happiness;  and  added  to 
that,  the  wisdom  to  live  in  accordance  with  those  conditions. 

—The  Morning  Advertistr^  New  York,  June  12, 1891. 


THE  TENDENCY  OF  MODERN  THOUGHT. 

Question.  Do  you  regard  the  Briggs  trial  as  any  evidence 
of  the  growth  of  Liberalism  in  the  church  itself? 

Answer.  When  men  get  together,  and  make  what  they 
call  a  creed,  the  supposition  is  that  they  then  say  as  nearly 
as  possible  what  they  mean  and  what  they  believe.  A 
written  creed,  of  necessity,  remains  substantially  the  same. 
In  a  few  years  this  creed  ceases  to  give  exactly  the  new 
shade  of  thought.  Then  begin  two  processes,  one  of  de- 
struction and  the  other  of  preservation.  In  every  church, 
as  in  every  party,  and  as  you  may  say  in  every  corporation, 
there  are  two  wings — one  progressive,  the  other  conserva- 
tive. In  the  church  there  will  be  a  few,  and  they  will 
represent  the  real  intelligence  of  the  church,  who  become 
dissatisfied  with  the  creed,  and  who  at  first  satisfy  them- 
selves by  giving  new  meanings  to  old  words.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  conservative  party  appeals  to  emotions,  to 
memories,  and  to  the  experiences  of  their  fellow-members, 
for  the  purpose  of  upholding  the  old  dogmas  and  the  old 
ideas ;  so  that  each  creed  is  like  a  crumbling  castle.  The 
conservatives  plant  ivy  and  other  vines,  hoping  that  their 
leaves  will  hide  the  cracks  and  erosions  of  time;  but  the 
thoughtful  see  beyond  these  leaves  and  are  satisfied  that 
the  structure  itself  is  in  process  of  decay,  and  that  no 
amount  of  ivy  can  restore  the  crumbling  stones. 

The  old  Presbyterian  creed,  when  it  was  first  formulated, 
satisfied  a  certain  religious  intellect.  At  that  time  people 
were  not  very  merciful.  They  had  no  clear  conceptions  of 
justice.  Their  lives  were  for  the  most  part  hard;  most  of 
them  suffered  the  pains  and  pangs  of  poverty ;  nearly  all 
lived  in  tyrannical  governments  and  were  the  sport  of 
nobles  and  kings.    Their  idea  of  God  was  born  of  their 


INTERVIEWS.  471 

surroundings,  God,  to  them,  was  an  infinite  king  who  de- 
delighted  in  exhibitions  of  power.  At  any  rate,  their 
minds  were  so  constructed  that  they  conceived  of  an  infinite 
being  who,  billions  of  years  before  the  world  was,  made  up 
his  mind  as  to  whom  he  would  save  and  whom  he  would 
damn.  He  not  only  made  up  his  mind  as  to  the  number  he 
would  save,  and  the  number  that  should  be  lost,  but  he 
saved  and  damned  without  the  slightest  reference  to  the 
character  of  the  individual.  They  believed  then,  and  some 
pretend  to  believe  still,  that  God  damns  a  man  not  because 
he  is  bad,  and  that  he  saves  a  man  not  because  he  is  good, 
but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  self-glorification  as  an  exhibi- 
tion of  his  eternal  justice.  It  would  be  impossible  to  con- 
ceive of  any  creed  more  horrible  than  that  of  the  Presby- 
terians. Although  I  admit— and  I  not  only  admit  but  I 
assert — that  the  creeds  of  all  orthodox  Christians  are  sub- 
stantially the  same,  the  Presbyterian  creed  says  plainly 
what  it  means.  There  is  no  hesitation,  no  evasion.  The 
horrible  truth,  so-called,  is  stated  in  the  clearest  possible 
language.  One  would  think  after  reading  this  creed,  that 
the  men  who  made  it  not  only  believed  it,  but  were  really 
glad  it  was  true. 

Ideas  of  justice,  of  the  use  of  power,  of  the  use  of  mercy, 
have  greatly  changed  in  the  last  century.  We  are  begin- 
ning dimly  to  see  that  each  man  is  the  result  of  an  infinite 
number  of  conditions,  of  an  infinite  number  of  facts,  most  of 
which  existed  before  he  was  born.  We  are  beginning 
dimly  to  see  that  while  reason  is  a  pilot,  each  soul  navigates 
the  mysterious  sea  filled  with  tides  and  unknown  currents 
set  in  motion  by  ancestors  long  since  dust.  We  are  begin- 
ning to  see  that  defects  of  mind  are  transmitted  precisely 
the  same  as  defects  of  body,  and  in  my  judgment,  the  time 
is  coming  when  we  shall  no  more  think  of  punishing  a  man 
for  larceny  than  for  having  the  consumption.  We  shall 
know  that  the  thief  is  a  necessary  and  natural  result   of 


472  INTERVIEWS. 

conditions,  preparing,  you  may  say,  the  field  of  the  world 
for  the  growth  of  man.  We  shall  no  longer  depend  upon 
accident  and  ignorance  and  providence.  We  shall  depend 
upon  intelligence  and  science. 

The  Presbyterian  creed  is  no  longer  in  harmony  with  the 
average  sense  of  man.  It  shocks  the  average  mind.  It 
seems  too  monstrous  to  be  true ;  too  horrible  to  find  a  lodg- 
ment in  the  mind  of  the  civilized  man.  The  Presbyterian 
minister  who  thinks,  is  giving  new  meanings  to  the  old 
words.  The  Presbyterian  minister  who  feels,  also  gives 
new  meanings  to  the  old  words.  Only  those  who  neither 
think  nor  feel  remain  orthodox. 

For  many  years  the  Christian  world  has  been  engaged  in 
examining  the  religions  of  other  peoples,  and  the  Christian 
scholars  have  had  but  little  trouble  in  demonstrating  the 
origin  of  Mohammedanism  and  Buddhism  and  all  other 
isms  except  ours.  After  having  examined  other  religions 
in  the  light  of  science,  it  occurred  to  some  of  our  theolo- 
gians to  examine  their  own  doctrine  in  the  same  way,  and 
the  result  has  been  exactly  the  same  in  both  cases.  Dr. 
Briggs,  as  I  believe,  is  a  man  of  education.  He  is  un- 
doubtedly familiar  with  other  religions,  and  has,  to  some 
extent  at  least,  made  himself  familiar  with  the  sacred  books 
of  other  people.  Dr.  Briggs  knows  that  no  human  being 
knows  who  wrote  a  line  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  knows 
as  well  as  he  can  know  anything,  for  instance,  that  Moses 
never  wrote  one  word  of  the  books  attributed  to  him.  He 
knows  also  that  the  book  of  Genesis  was  made  by  putting 
two  or  three  stories  together.  He  also  knows  that  it  is  not 
the  oldest  story,  but  was  borrowed.  He  knows  that  in  this 
book  of  Genesis  there  is  not  one  word  adapted  to  make  a 
human  being  better,  or  to  shed  the  slightest  light  on  human 
conduct.  He  knows,  if  he  knows  anything,  that  the  Mosaic 
Code,  so-called,  was,  and  is,  exceedingly  barbarous  and  not 
adapted  to  do  justice  between  man  and  man,  or  between 


INTERVIEWS.  473 

nation  and  nation.  He  knows  that  the  Jewish  people  pur- 
sued a  course  adapted  to  destroy  themselves ;  that  they 
refused  to  make  friends  with  their  neighbors;  that  they 
had  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  rights  of  other  people  ;  that 
they  really  supposed  that  the  earth  was  theirs,  and  that  their 
God  was  the  greatest  God  in  the  heavens.  He  also  knows 
that  there  are  many  thousands  of  mistakes  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  translated.  He  knows  that  the  book  of  Isaiah  is 
made  up  of  several  books.  He  knows  the  same  thing  in 
regard  to  the  New  Testament.  He  also  knows  that  there 
were  many  other  books  that  were  once  considered  sacred 
that  have  been  thrown  away,  and  that  nobody  knows  who 
wrote  a  solitary  line  of  the  New  Testament. 

Besides  all  this,  Dr.  Briggs  knows  that  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  are  filled  with  interpolations,  and  he  knows 
that  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  been  taken  as  the 
foundation  stones  for  creeds,  were  written  hundreds  of 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ.  He  knows  well  enough 
that  Christ  never  said:  *'I  came  not  to  bring  peace,  but  a 
sword."  He  knows  that  the  same  being  never  said :  "Thou 
art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church."  He 
knows,  too,  that  Christ  never  said  :  '*  Whosoever  believes 
shall  be  saved,  and  whosoever  believes  not  shall  be  damned." 
He  knows  that  these  were  interpolations.  He  knows  that 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  another  interpolation.  He 
knows,  if  he  knows  anything,  that  the  gospel  according  to 
John  was  written  long  after  the  rest,  and  that  nearly  all  the 
poison  and  superstition  of  orthodoxy  is  in  that  book.  He 
knows  also,  if  he  knows  anything,  that  St.  Paul  never  read 
one  of  the  four  gospels. 

Knowing  all  these  things.  Dr.  Briggs  has  had  the 
honesty  to  say  that  there  was  some  trouble  about  taking 
the  Bible  as  absolutely  inspired  in  word  and  punctuation. 
I  do  not  think,  however,  that  he  can  maintain  his  own 
position  and  still  remain  a  Presbyterian  or  anything  like  a 


474  INTERVIEWS, 

Presbyterian.  He  takes  the  ground,  I  believe,  tliat  there 
ar«  three  sources  of  knowledge :  First,  the  Bible ;  second, 
the  church;  third,  reason.  It  seems  to  me  that  reason 
should  come  first,  because  if  you  say  the  Bible  is  a  source 
of  authority,  why  do  you  say  it  ?  Do  you  say  this  because 
your  reason  :s  convinced  that  it  is?  If  so,then reason  is  tha 
foundation  of  that  belief.  If,  again,  you  say  the  church  is 
a  source  of  authority,  why  do  you  say  so  ?  It  must  be 
because  its  history  convinces  your  reason  that  it  is.  Con- 
sequently, the  foundation  of  that  idea  is  reason.  At  the 
bottom  of  this  pyramid  must  be  reason,  and  no  man  is  under 
any  obligation  to  believe  thai  which  is  unreasonable  to  him. 
He  may  believe  things  that  he  cannot  prove,  but  he  does 
not  believe  them  because  they  aie  unreasonable.  He 
believes  them  because  he  thinks  the]'  are  not  unreasonable, 
not  impossible,  not  improbable.  But,  aft-^r  2^,  reason  is  the 
crucible  in  which  every  fact  must  be  placed,  and  the  result 
fixes  the  belief  of  the  intelligent  man. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  whole  Presbyterian  creed  must 
come  down  together.  It  is  a  scheme  based  upon  certain 
facts,  so-called.  There  is  in  it  the  fall  of  man.  There  is  in 
it  the  scheme  of  the  atonement,  and  there  is  the  idea  of 
hell,  eternal  punishment,  and  the  idea  of  heaven,  eternal 
reward ;  and  yet,  according  to  their  creed,  hell  is  not  a 
punishment  and  heaven  is  not  a  reward.  Now,  if  we  do 
away  with  the  fall  of  man  we  do  away  with  the  atonement  ; 
then  we  do  away  with  all  supernatural  religion.  Then  we 
come  back  to  human  reason.  Personally,  I  hope  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  will  be  advanced  enough  and  splendid 
enough  to  be  honest,  and  if  it  is  honest,  all  the  gentlemen 
who  amount  to  anything,  who  assist  in  the  trial  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  will  in  all  probability  agree  with  him,  and  he  will 
be  acquitted.  But  if  they  throw  aside  their  reason,  and 
remain  blindly  orthodox,  then  he  will  be  convicted.  To  me 
it  is  simply  miraculous  that  any  man  should  imagine  that 


■    TNTERVIEWSr  475 

the  Bible  is  the  source  of  truth.  There  was  a  time  when  all 
scientific  facts  were  measured  by  the  Bible.  That  time  is 
past,  and  now  the  believers  in  the  Bible  are  doing  their  best 
to  convince  us  that  it  is  in  harmony  with  science.  In  other 
words,  I  have  lived  to  see  a  change  of  standards.  When  I 
was  a  boy,  science  was  measured  by  the  Bible.  Now  the 
Bible  is  measured  by  science.  This  is  an  immense  step. 
So  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  conceive  what  kind  of  a  mind 
a  man  has,  who  finds  in  the  history  of  the  church  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  a  source  of  truth.  How  can  any  one  come 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  been  a 
source  of  truth,  a  source  of  intellectual  light  ?  How  can 
anyone  believe  that  the  church  of  John  Calvin  has  been  a 
source  of  truth  ?  If  its  creed  is  not  true,,  if  its  doctrines  are 
mistakes,  if  its  dogmas  are  monstrous  delusions,  how  can  it 
be  said  to  have  been  a  source  of  truth  ? 

My  opinion  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  will  not  be  satisfied  with 
the  step  he  has  taken.  He  has  turned  his  face  a  little 
toward  the  light.  The  farther  he  walks  the  harder  it  will 
be  for  him  to  turn  back.  The  probability  is  that  the 
orthodox  will  turn  him  out,  and  the  process  of  driving  out 
men  of  thought  and  men  of  genius  will  go  on  until  the 
remnant  will  be  as  orthodox  as  they  are  stupid. 

Question.  Do  you  think  mankind  is  drifting  away  from 
the  supernatural  ? 

A?tswer.  My  belief  is  that  the  supernatural  has  had  its 
day.  The  church  must  either  change  or  abdicate.  That  is 
to  say,  it  must  keep  step  with  the  progress  of  the  world  or 
be  trampled  under  foot.  The  church  as  a  power  has  ceased 
to  exist.  To-day  it  is  a  matter  of  infinite  indifference  what 
the  pulpit  thinks  unless  there  comes  the  voice  of  heresy 
from  the  sacred  place.  Every  orthodox  minister  in  the 
United  States  is  listened  to  just  in  proportion  that  he 
preaches  heresy.  The  real,  simon-pure,  orthodox  clergy- 
man delivers  his  homilies  to  empty  benches,  and  to  a  few 


476  INTERVIEWSo 

ancient  people  who  know  nothing  of  the  tides  and  currents 
of  modern  thought.  The  orthodox  pulpit  to-day  has  no 
thought,  and  the  pews  are  substantially  in  the  same  con- 
dition. There  was  a  time  when  the  curse  of  the  church 
whitened  the  face  of  a  race,  but  now  its  anathema  is  the 
food  of  laughter. 

Question.  What,  in  your  judgment, is  to  be  the  outcome  of 
the  present  agitation  in  religious  circles  ? 

Answer.  My  idea  is  that  people  more  and  more  are  de- 
clining the  postponement  of  happiness  to  another  world. 
The  general  tendency  is  to  enjoy  the  present.  All  religions 
have  taught  men  that  the  pleasures  of  this  world  are  of  no 
account;  that  they  are  nothing  but  husks  and  rags  and 
chaff  and  disappointment;  that  whoever  expects  to  be 
happy  in  this  world  makes  a  mistake ;  that  there  is  nothing 
on  the  earth  worth  striving  for ;  that  the  principal  business 
of  mankind  should  be  to  get  ready  to  be  happy  in  another 
world ;  that  the  great  occupation  is  to  save  your  soul,  and 
when  you  get  it  saved,  w^hen  you  are  satisfied  that  you  are  one 
of  the  elect,  then  pack  up  all  your  worldy  things  in  a  very 
small  trunk,  take  it  to  the  dock  of  time  that  runs  out  into  the 
ocean  of  eternity,  sit  down  on  it,  and  wait  for  the  ship  of 
death.  And  of  course  each  church  is  the  only  one  that  sells 
a  through  ticket  which  can  be  depended  on.  In  all  relig- 
ions, so  far  as  I  know,  is  an  admixture  of  asceticism,  and 
the  greater  the  quantity,  the  more  beautiful  the  religion  has 
been  considered.  The  tendency  of  the  world  to-day  is  to 
enjoy  life  while  you  have  it ;  it  is  to  get  something  out  of 
the  present  moment;  and  we  have  found  that  there  are 
things  worth  living  for  even  in  this  world.  We  have  found 
that  a  man  can  enjoy  himselr  with  wife  and  children;  that 
he  can  be  happy  in  the  acquisition  of  knowledge ;  that  he 
can  be  very  happy  in  assisting  others  ;  in  helping  those  he 
loves ;  that  there  is  some  jo}^  in  poetry,  in  science  and  in 
the  enlargement  and  development  of  the  mind ;  that  there 


INTERVIEWS,  477 

is  some  delight  in  music  and  in  the  drama  and  in  the  arts. 
We  are  finding,  poor  as  the  world  is,  that  it  beats  a  promise 
the  fulfillment  of  which  is  not  to  take  place  until  after  death. 
The  world  is  also  finding  out  another  thing,  and  that  is  that 
the  gentlemen  who  preach  these  various  religions,  and 
promise  these  rewards,  and  threaten  these  punishments, 
know  nothing  whatever  of  the  subject;  that  they  are  as 
blindly  ignorant  as  the  people  they  pretend  to  teach,  and 
the  people  are  as  blindly  ignorant  as  the  animals  below 
them.  We  have  finally  concluded  that  no  human  being 
has  the  slightest  conception  of  origin  or  of  destiny,  and  that 
this  life,  not  only  in  its  commencement  but  in  its  end,  is 
just  as  mysterious  to-day  as  it  was  to  the  first  man  whose 
eyes  greeted  the  rising  sun.  We  are  no  nearer  the  solution 
of  the  problem  than  those  who  lived  thousands  of  years 
before  us,  and  we  are  just  as  near  it  as  those  who  will  live 
millions  of  years  after  we  are  dead.  So  many  people  hav- 
ing arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  nobody  knows  and  that 
nobody  can  know,  like  sensible  folks  they  have  made  up 
their  minds  to  enjoy  this  life.  I  have  often  said,  and  I  say 
again,  that  I  feel  as  if  I  were  on  a  ship  not  knowing 
the  port  from  which  it  sailed,  not  knowing  the  harbor  to 
which  it  was  going,  not  having  a  speaking  acquaintance 
with  any  of  the  ofi&cers,  and  I  have  made  up  my  mind  to 
have  as  good  a  time  with  the  other  passengers  as  possible 
under  the  circumstances.  If  this  ship  goes  down  in  mid- 
sea  I  have  at  least  made  something,  and  if  it  reaches  a  har- 
bor of  perpetual  delight  I  have  lost  nothing,  and  I  have  had  a 
happy  voyage.  And  I  think  millions  and  millions  are  agree- 
ing with  me. 

Now,  understand,  I  am  not  finding  fault  with  any  of  these 
religions  or  with  any  of  these  ministers.  These  religions 
and  these  ministers  are  the  necessary  and  natural  products 
of  sufficient  causes.  Mankind  has  traveled  from  barbarism 
to  what  we  now  call  civilization,  by  many  paths,  all  of  which. 


478  INTERVIEWS. 

under  the  circumstances,  were  absolutely  necessary ;  and 
while  I  think  the  individual  does  as  he  must,  I  think  the 
same  of  the  church,  of  the  corporation,  and  of  the  nation, 
and  not  only  of  the  nation,  but  of  the  whole  human  race. 
Consequently  I  have  no  malice  and  no  prejudices.  I  have 
likes  and  dislikes.  I  do  not  blame  a  gourd  for  not  being  a 
cantaloupe,  but  I  like  cantaloupes.  So  I  do  not  blame  the  old 
hard-shell  Presbyterian  for  not  being  a  philosopher,but  I  like 
philosophers.  So  to  wind  it  all  up  with  regard  to  the  tendency 
of  modern  thought,  or  as  to  the  outcome  of  what  you  call 
religion,  my  own  belief  is  that  what  is  known  as  religion 
will  disappear  from  the  human  mind.  And  by  "  religion  "  I 
meat!  the  supernatural.  By  "  religion  "  I  mean  living  in  this 
world  for  another,  or  living  in  this  world  to  gratify  some 
supposed  being,  whom  we  never  saw  and  about  whom  we 
know  nothing,  and  of  whose  existence  we  know  nothing. 
In  other  words,  religion  consists  of  the  duties  w^e  are  sup- 
posed to  owe  to  the  first  great  cause,  and  of  certain  things 
necessary  for  us  to  do  here  to  insure  happiness  hereafter. 
These  ideas,  in  my  judgment,  are  destined  to  perish,  and 
men  will  become  convinced  that  all  their  duties  are  within 
their  reach,  and  that  obligations  can  exist  only  between 
them  and  other  sentient  beings.  Another  idea,  I  think,  will 
force  itself  upon  the  mind,  which  is  this:  That  he  who 
lives  the  best  for  this  world  lives  the  best  for  another  if 
there  be  one.  In  other  words,  humanity  will  take  the  place 
of  what  is  called  "religion."  Science  will  displace  super- 
stition, and  to  do  justice  will  be  the  ambition  of  men. 

My  creed  is  this:  Happiness  is  the  only  good.  The 
place  to  be  happy  is  here.  The  time  to  be  happy  is  now. 
The  w^ay  to  be  happy  is  to  make  others  so. 

Question.  What  is  going  to  take  the  place  of  the  pulpit  ? 

Answer.  I  have  for  a  long  time  wondered  why  somebody 
didn't  start  a  church  on  a  sensible  basis.  My  idea  is  this  : 
There  are,  of  course,  in  every  community,  lawyers,  doctors. 


INTERVIEWS.  479 

mercliants,  and  people  of  all  trades  and  professions  who 
have  not  the  time  during  the  week  to  pay  any  particular 
attention  to  history,  poetry,  art,  or  song.  Now,  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  have  a  church  and  for 
these  men  to  employ  a  man  of  ability,  of  talent,  to  preach 
to  them  Sundays,  and  let  this  man  say  to  this  congregation  : 
"  Now,  I  am  going  to  preach  to  j^ou  for  the  first  few  Sun- 
days— eight  or  ten  or  twenty,  we  will  say — on  the  art, 
poetry,  and  intellectual  achievements  of  the  Greeks."  Let 
this  man  study  all  the  week  and  tell  his  congregation  Sun- 
day what  he  has  ascertained.  Let  him  give  to  his  people 
the  history  of  such  men  as  Plato,  as  Socrates,  what  they 
did  ;  of  Aristotle,  of  his  philosophy  ;  of  the  great  Greeks, 
their  statesmen,  their  dramatists,  their  poets,  actors,  and 
sculptors,  and  let  him  show  the  debt  that  modern  civiliza- 
tion owes  to  these  people.  Let  him,  too,  give  their  religions, 
their  mythology — a  mythology  that  has  sown  the  seed  of 
beauty  in  every  land.  Then  let  him  take  up  Rome.  Let 
him  show  what  a  wonderful  and  practical  people  they 
were ;  let  him  give  an  idea  of  their  statesmen,  orators,  poets, 
lawyers — because  probably  the  Romans  were  the  greatest 
lawyers.  And  so  let  him  go  through  with  nation  after 
nation,  biography  after  biography,  and  at  the  same  time  let 
there  be  a  Sunday  school  connected  with  this  church 
where  the  children  shall  be  taught  something  of  import- 
ance. For  instance,  teach  them  botany,  and  when  a  Sunday 
is  fair,  clear,  and  beautiful,  let  them  go  to  the  fields  and 
woods  with  their  teachers,  and  in  a  little  while  they  will 
become  acquainted  with  all  kinds  of  trees  and  shrubs  and 
flowering  plants.  They  could  also  be  taught  entomology,  so 
that  every  bug  would  be  interesting,  for  they  would  see 
the  facts  in  science — something  of  use  to  them.  I  believe 
that  such  a  church  and  such  a  Sunday  school  would  at  the 
end  of  a  few  years  be  the  most  intelligent  collection  of 
people  in  the  United  States.     To  teach  the  children  all  of 


480  INTERVIEWS. 

these  things  and  to  teach  their  parents,  too,  the  outlines  of 
every  science,  so  that  every  listener  would  know  something 
of  geology,  something  of  astronomy,  so  that  every  member 
could  tell  the  manner  in  w^hich  they  find  the  distance  of  a 
star — how  much  better  that  would  be  than  the  old  talk  about 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  quotations  from  Haggai 
and  Zephaniah,  and  all  this  eternal  talk  about  the  fall  of 
man  and  the  Garden  of  Eden,  and  the  flood,  and  the  atone- 
ment, and  the  wonders  of  Revelation  !  Even  if  the  religious 
scheme  be  true,  it  can  be  told  and  understood  as  well  in 
one  day  as  in  a  hundred  years.  The  church  says  :  "  He 
that  hath  ears  to  hear  let  him  hear."  I  say:  "He  that 
hath  brains  to  think,  let  him  think."  So,  too,  the  pulpit  is 
being  displaced  by  what  w^e  call  places  of  amusement, 
which  are  really  places  where  men  go  because  they  find 
there  is  something  which  satisfies  in  a  greater  or  less  de- 
gree the  hunger  of  the  brain.  Never  before  w^as  the  theatre 
so  popular  as  it  is  now.  Never  before  was  so  much  money 
lavished  upon  the  stage  as  now.  Very  few  men  having 
their  choice  would  go  to  hear  a  sermon,  especially  of  the 
orthodox  kind,  when  they  had  a  chance  to  see  a  great  actor. 
The  man  must  be  a  curious  combination  who  would  pre- 
fer an  orthodox  sermon,  we  will  say,  to  a  concert  given  by 
Theodore  Thomas.  And  I  may  say  in  passing  that  I  have 
great  respect  for  Theodore  Thomas,  because  it  was  he  who 
first  of  all  opened  to  the  American  people  the  golden  gates 
of  music.  He  made  the  American  people  acquainted  with 
the  great  masters,  and  especially  with  Wagner,  and  it  is  a 
debt  that  we  shall  always  owe  him.  In  this  day  the  opera 
— that  is  to  say,  music  in  every  form — is  tending  to  dis- 
place the  pulpit.  The  pulpits  have  to  go  in  partnership 
with  music  now.  Hundreds  of  people  have  excused 
themselves  to  me  for  going  to  church,  saying  they  have 
splendid  music.  Long  ago  the  Catholic  Church  was 
forced  to  go  into  partnership  not  only  with  music,  but  with 


INTERVIEWS.  481 

painting  and  with  architecture.  The  Protestant  Church 
for  a  long  time  thought  it  could  do  without  these  beggarly 
elements,  and  the  Protestant  Church  was  simply  a  dry- 
goods  box  with  a  small  steeple  on  top  of  it,  its  walls  as 
bleak  and  bare  and  unpromising  as  the  creed.  But  even 
Protestants  have  been  forced  to  hire  a  choir  of  ungodly 
people  who  happen  to  have  beautiful  voices,  and  they,  too, 
have  appealed  to  the  organ.  Music  is  taking  the  place  of 
creed,  and  there  is  more  real  devotional  feeling  summoned 
from  the  temple  of  the  mind  by  great  music  than  by  any 
sermon  ever  delivered.  Music,  of  all  other  things,  gives 
wings  to  thought  and  allows  the  soul  to  rise  above  all  the 
pains  and  troubles  of  this  life,  and  to  feel  for  a  moment  as 
if  it  were  absolutely  free,  above  all  clouds,  destined  to 
enjoy  forever.  So,  too,  science  is  beckoning  with  countless 
hands.  Men  of  genius  are  everywhere  beckoning  men  to 
discoveries,  promising  them  fortunes  compared  with  which 
Aladdin's  lamp  was  weak  and  poor.  All  these  things  take 
men  from  the  church  ;  take  men  from  the  pulpit.  In  other 
words,  prosperity  is  the  enemy  of  the  pulpit.  When  men 
enjoy  life,  when  they  are  prosperous  here,  they  are  in  love 
with  the  arts,  with  the  sciences,  with  everything  that  gives 
joy,  with  everything  that  promises  plenty,  and  they  care 
nothing  about  the  prophecies  of  evil  that  fall  from  the 
solemn  faces  of  the  parsons.  They  look  in  other  directions. 
They  are  not  thinking  about  the  end  of  the  world.  They 
hate  the  lugubrious,  and  they  enjoy  the  sunshine  of  to-day. 
And  this,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  highest  philosophy  :  First, 
do  not  regret  having  lost  yesterday  ;  second,  do  not  fear 
that  you  will  lose  to-morrow  ;  third,  enjoy  to-day. 

Astrology  was  displaced  by  astronomy.  Alchemy  and 
the  black  art  gave  way  to  chemistry.  Science  is  destined 
to  take  the  place  of  superstition.  In  my  judgment,  the 
religion  of  the  future  will  be   Reason. — The  Tribune,  chiosigo, 

Illinois,  November,  1891. 


WOMAN  SUFFRAGE,  HORSE  RACING  AND  MONEY. 

Question.  What  are  your  opinions  on  the  woman's  suf- 
frage question  ? 

Answer.  I  claim  no  right  that  I  am  not  willing  to  give  to 
my  wife  and  daughters,  and  to  the  wives  and  daughters  of 
other  men.  We  shall  never  have  a  generation  of  great  men 
until  we  have  had  a  generation  of  great  women.  I  do  not 
regard  ignorance  as  the  foundation  of  virtue,  or  useless- 
ness  as  one  of  the  requisites  of  a  lady.  I  am  a  believer  in 
equal  rights.  Those  who  are  amenable  to  the  laws  should 
have  a  voice  in  making  the  laws.  In  every  department 
where  woman  has  had  an  equal  opportunity  with  man,  she 
has  shown  that  she  has  equal  capacity. 

George  Sand  was  a  great  writer,  George  Eliot  one  of  the 
greatest,  Mrs.  Browning  a  marvelous  poet — and  the  lyric 
beauty  of  her  "Mother  and  Poet"  is  greater  than  anything 
her  husband  ever  wrote — Harriet  Martineau  a  wonderful 
woman,  and  Ouida  is  probably  the  greatest  living  novelist, 
man  or  woman.     Give  the  women  a  chance. 

The  Colonel's  recent  election  as  a  life  member  of  the  Manhattan 
Athletic  Club,  due  strangely  enough  to  a  speech  of  his  denouncing 
certain  forms  of  sport,  was  referred  to,  and  this  led  him  to  express  his 
contempt  for  prize-fighting,  and  then  he  said  on  the  subject  of  horse- 
racing  ; 

The  only  objection  I  have  to  horse  racing  is  its  cruelt3% 
The  whip  and  spur  should  be  banished  from  the  track.  As 
long  as  these  are  used,  the  race  track  will  breed  a  very  low 
and  heartless  set  of  men.  I  hate  to  see  a  brute  whip  and 
spur  a  noble  animal.  The  good  people  object  to  racing 
because  of  the  betting,  but  bad  people,  like  myself,  object 
to  the  cruelty.     Men  are  not  forced  to  bet.     That  is  their 

(482) 


INTERVIEWS.  483 

own  business,  but  the  poor  horse,  straining  every  nerve, 
does  not  ask  for  the  lash  and  iron.  Abolish  torture  on  the 
track  and  let  the  best  horse  win. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Chilian  insult  to  the 
United  States  flag. 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  think  that  our  Government 
was  wrong  in  taking  the  part  of  Balmaceda.  In  the  next 
place,  we  made  a  mistake  in  seizing  the  Itata.  America 
should  always  side  with  the  right.  We  should  care  nothing 
for  the  pretender  in  power,  and  Balmaceda  was  a  cruel, 
tyrannical  scoundrel.  We  should  be  with  the  people  every- 
where. I  do  not  blame  Chili  for  feeling  a  little  revengeful. 
We  ought  to  remember  that  Chili  is  weak,  and  nations,  like 
individuals,  are  sensitive  in  proportion  that  they  are  weak. 
Let  us  treat  Chili  just  as  we  would  England.  We  are  too 
strong  to  be  unjust. 

Question.  How  do  you  stand  on  the  money  question  ? 

Answer.  I  am  with  the  Republican  party  on  the  question 
of  money.  I  am  for  the  use  of  gold  and  silver  both,  but  I 
want  a  dollar's  worth  of  silver  in  a  silver  dollar.  I  do  not 
believe  in  light  money,  or  in  cheap  money,  or  in  poor 
money.  These  are  all  contradictions  in  terms.  Congress 
cannot  fix  the  value  of  money.  The  most  it  can  do  is  to 
fix  its  debt  paying  power.  It  is  be3^ond  the  power  of  any 
Congress  to  fix  the  purchasing  value  of  what  it  may  be 
pleased  to  call  money.  Nobody  knows,  so  far  as  I  know, 
why  people  want  gold.  I  do  not  know  why  people  want 
silver.  I  do  not  know  how  gold  came  to  be  money; 
neither  do  I  understand  the  universal  desire,  but  it  ex- 
ists, and  we  take  things  as  we  find  them.  Gold  and 
silver  make  up,  you  may  say,  the  money  of  the  world,  and 
I  believe  in  using  the  two  metals.  I  do  not  believe  in  de- 
preciating any  American  product;  but  as  value  cannot  be 
absolutely  fixed  by  law,  so  far  as  the  purchasing  power  is 
concerned,  and  as  the  values  of  gold  and  silver  varv%  neither 


484  INTERVIEWS. 

being  stable  any  more  tban  the  value  of  wheat  or  corn  is 
stable,  I  believe  that  legislation  should  keep  pace  within  a 
reasonable  distance  at  least,  of  the  varying  values,  and  that 
the  money  should  be  kept  as  nearly  equal  as  possible.  Of 
course,  there  is  one  trouble  with  money  to-day,  and  that  is 
the  use  of  the  word  "dollar."  It  has  lost  its  meaning.  So 
many  governments  have  adulterated  their  own  coin,  and  so 
many  have  changed  weights, that  the  word  "  dollar"  has  not 
to-day  an  absolute,  definite,  specific  meaning.  Like  indi- 
viduals, nations  have  been  dishonest.  The  only  time  the 
papal  power  had  the  right  to  coin  money — I  believe  it  was 
under  Pius  IX.,  when  Antonelli  was  his  minister — the  coin 
of  the  papacy  was  so  debased  that  even  orthodox  Catholics 
refused  to  take  it,  and  it  had  to  be  called  in  and  minted  by 
the  French  Empire,  before  even  the  Italians  recognized  it 
as  money.  My  own  opinion  is,  that  either  the  dollar 
must  be  absolutely  defined — it  must  be  the  world  over 
so  many  grains  of  pure  gold,  or  so  many  grains  of 
pure  silver — or  we  must  have  other  denominations  for 
our  money,  as  for  instance,  ounces,  or  parts  of  ounces  ; 
and  the  time  will  come,  in  my  judgment,  when  there  will 
be  a  money  of  the  world,  the  same  everywhere;  because 
each  coin  will  contain  upon  its  face  the  certificate  of  a 
government  that  it  contains  such  a  weight — so  many  grains 
or  so  many  ounces — of  a  certain  metal.  I,  for  one,  want 
the  money  of  the  United  States  to  be  as  good  as  that  of  any 
other  country.  I  want  its  gold  and  silver  exactly  what 
they  purport  to  be;  and  I  want  the  paper  issued  by  this 
Government  to  be  the  same  as  gold.  I  want  its  credit  so 
perfectly  established  that  it  will  be  taken  in  every  part  of 
the  habitable  globe.  I  am  with  the  Republican  party  on 
the  question  of  money,  also  on  the  question  of  protection ; 
and  all  I  hope  is  that  the  people  of  this  country  will  have 
sense  enough  to  defend  their  own  interests. — The  inter^Octany 

Chicago,  Illinois,  October  27,  1891. 


MISSIONARIES. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  foreign  missions? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  there  seems  to  be  a  pretty 
good  opening  in  this  country  for  missionary  work.  We 
have  a  good  many  Indians  who  are  not  Methodists.  I 
have  never  known  one  to  be  converted.  A  good  many  have 
been  killed  by  Christians,  but  their  souls  have  not  been 
saved.  Maybe  the  Methodists  had  better  turn  their  atten- 
tion to  the  heathen  of  our  own  country.  Then  we  have  a 
good  many  Mormons  who  rely  on  the  truth  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  follow  the  example  of  Abraham,  Isaac  and 
Jacob.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Methodists  better  convert 
the  Mormons  before  attacking  the  tribes  of  Central  Africa, 
There  is  plenty  of  work  to  be  done  right  here.  A  few  good 
bishops  might  be  employed  for  a  time  in  converting  Dr. 
Briggs  and  Professor  Swing,  to  say  nothing  of  other 
heretical  Presbyterians. 

There  is  no  need  of  going  to  China  to  convert  the 
Chinese.  There  are  thousands  of  them  here.  In  China  our 
missionaries  tell  the  followers  of  Confucius  about  the  love 
and  forgiveness  of  Christians,  and  when  the  Chinese  come 
here  they  are  robbed,  assaulted  and  often  murdered. 
Would  it  not  be  a  good  thing  for  the  Methodists  to  civilize 
our  own  Christians  to  such  a  degree  that  they  would  not 
murder  a  man  simply  because  he  belongs  to  another  race 
and  worships  other  gods  ? 

So,  too,  I  think  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  the  Metho- 
dists to  go  South  and  persuade  their  brethren  in  that  country 
to  treat  the  colored  people  with  kindness.  A  few  efforts 
might  be  made  to  convert  the  "White-caps"  in  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  some  other  States. 

My  advice  to  the  Methodists  is  to  do  what  little  good  they 

(485) 


486  INTERVIEWS. 

can  right  liere  and  now.  It  seems  cruel  to  preacli  to  the 
heathen  a  gospel  that  is  dying  out  even  here,  and  fill  their 
poor  minds  with  the  absurd  dogmas  and  cruel  creeds  that 
intelligent  men  have  outgrown  and  thrown  away. 

Honest  commerce  will  do  a  thousand  times  more  good 
than  all  the  missionaries  on  earth.  I  do  not  believe  that  an 
intelligent  Chinaman  or  an  intelligent  Hindoo  has  ever  been 
or  ever  will  be  converted  into  a  Methodist.  If  Methodism 
is  good  we  need  it  here,  and  if  it  is  not  good,  do  not  fool  the 

heathen  with  it. —  The  Press,  Cleveland,  Ohio,  November  12, 1891. 

MY  BELIEF  AND  UNBELIEF.* 

Question.  I  have  heard  people  in  discussing  yourself  and 
your  views,  express  the  belief  that  way  down  in  the  depths 
of  your  mind  you  are  not  altogether  a  "  disbeliever."  Are 
they  in  any  sense  correct  ? 

Answer.  I  am  an  unbeliever,  and  I  am  a  believer.  I  do 
not  believe  in  the  miraculous,  the  supernatural  or  the 
impossible.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  "Mosaic"  account  of 
the  creation,  or  in  the  flood,  or  the  Tower  of  Babel,  or  that 
General  Joshua  turned  back  the  sun  or  stopped  the  earth. 
I  do  not  believe  in  the  Jonah  story,  or  that  God  and  the 
Devil  troubled  poor  Job.  Neither  do  I  believe  in  the  Mt. 
Sinai  business,  and  I  have  my  doubts  about  the  broiled 
quails  furnished  in  the  wilderness.  Neither  do  I  believe 
that  man  is  wholly  depraved.  I  have  not  the  least  faith  in 
the  Eden,  snake  and  apple  story.  Neither  do  I  believe  that 
God  is  an  eternal  jailer  ;  that  he  is  going  to  be  the  warden 
of  an  everlasting  penitentiary  in  which  the  most  of  men  are 

*  Col.  Robert  G,  Ingersoll  was  in  Toledo  for  a  fcT  hours  yesterday  afternoon  on  rail 
road  business.  Whatever  Mr.  Tngersoll  says  is  always  read  with  interest,  for  besides  the 
independence  of  his  avermentB,  hia  ideas  are  worded  in  a  way  that  in  itself  is  attractive. 

While  in  the  court  room  talking  with  some  of  the  officials  and  others,  he  was  saying 
that  in  this  world  there  is  rather  an  unequal  distribution  of  comforts,  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments. For  himself,  he  had  fared  pretty  well.  He  stated  that  during  the  thirty  years 
he  has  been  married  there  have  been  fifteen  to  twenty  of  his  relatives  under  the  same  root, 
but  never  had  there  been  in  hie  family  a  death  or  a  night's  loss  of  sleep  on  account  or 
filckness. 

"  The  Lord  has  been  pretty  good  to  you,"  suggested  Marshall  Wade.  "  Well  I've  bee» 
pretty  good  to  him,"  he  answered. 


INTERVIEWS.  487 

to  be  etei^ally  tormented.  I  do  not  believe  tbat  any  man 
can  be  justly  punished  or  rewarded  on  account  of  his  beliefs 
But  I  do  believe  in  the  nobility  of  human  nature;  I 
believe  in  love  and  home,  and  kindness  and  humanity,  I 
believe  in  good  fellowship  and  cheerfulness,  in  making 
wife  and  children  happy.  I  believe  in  good  nature,  in  giv- 
ing to  others  all  the  rights  that  you  claim  for  yourself,  I 
believe  in  free  thought,  in  reason,  observation  and  experi- 
ence. I  believe  in  self-reliance  and  in  expressing  your 
honest  thought.  I  have  hope  for  the  whole  human  race. 
What  will  happen  to  one,  will,  I  hope,  happen  to  all,  and 
that,  I  hope,  will  be  good.     Above  all,  I  believe  in  Liberty. 

—The  Blade,  Toledo,  Ohio  January  9, 1892. 

MUST  RELIGION  GO } 

Question.  What  is  your  idea  as  to  the  difference  between 
honest  belief,  as  held  by  honest  religious  thinkers,  and 
heterodoxy  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  I  believe  that  there  are  thousands  of 
men  and  women  who  honestly  believe  not  only  in  the  im- 
probable, not  only  in  the  absurd,  but  in  the  impossible. 
Heterodoxy,  so-called,  occupies  the  half-way  station  between 
superstition  and  reason.  A  heretic  is  one  who  is  still 
dominated  by  religion,  but  in  the  east  of  whose  mind  there 
is  a  dawn.  He  is  one  who  has  seen  the  morning  star  ;  he 
has  not  entire  confidence  in  the  day,  and  imagines  in  some 
way  that  even  the  light  he  sees  was  born  of  the  night.  In 
the  mind  of  the  heretic,  darkness  and  light  are  mingled,  the 
ties  of  intellectual  kindred  bind  him  to  the  night,  and 
yet  he  has  enough  of  the  spirit  of  adventure  to  look  toward 
the  east.  Of  course,  I  admit  that  Christians  and  heretics 
are  both  honest ;  a  real  Christian  must  be  honest  and  a  real 
heretic  must  be  the  same.  All  men  must  be  honest  in  what 
they  think ;  but  all  men  are  not  honest  in  what  they  say „ 
In  the  invisible  world  of  the  mind  every  man  is  honest. 
The  judgment  never  was  bribed.     Speech  may  be  false,  but 


488  INTERVIEWS. 

conviction  is  always  honest.  So  that  the  difference  between 
honest  belief,  as  shared  by  honest  religious  thinkers  and 
heretics,  is  a  difference  of  intelligence.  It  is  the  difference 
between  a  ship  lashed  to  the  dock,  and  one  making  a  voy- 
age; it  is  the  difference  between  twilight  and  dawn — that 
is  to  say,  the  coming  of  the  night  and  the  coming  of  the 
morning. 

Questio7i.  Are  women  becoming  freed  from  the  bonds  of 
sectarianism  ? 

Answer.  Women  are  less  calculating  than  men.  As  a 
rule  they  do  not  occupy  the  territory  of  compromise.  They 
are  natural  extremists.  The  woman  who  is  not  dominated 
by  superstition  is  apt  to  be  absolutely  free,  and  when  a 
woman  has  broken  the  shackles  of  superstition,  she  has  no 
apprehension,  no  fears.  She  feels  that  she  is  on  the  open 
sea,  and  she  cares  neither  for  wind  nor  wave.  An  emanci- 
pated woman  never  can  be  re-enslaved.  Her  heart  goes 
with  her  opinions,  and  goes  first. 

Question.  Do  you  consider  that  the  influence  of  religion 
is  better  than  the  influence  of  Liberalism  upon  society; 
that  is  to  say,  is  society  less  or  more  moral,  is  vice  more  or 
less  conspicuous  ? 

Answer.  Whenever  a  chain  is  broken  an  obligation  takes 
its  place.  There  is  and  there  can  be  no  responsibility  with- 
out liberty.  The  freer  a  man  is,  the  more  responsible,  the 
more  accountable  he  feels ;  consequently  the  more  liberty 
there  is,  the  more  morality  there  is.  Believers  in  religion 
ieach  us  that  God  will  reward  men  for  good  actions,  but 
men  who  are  intellectually  free,  know  that  the  reward  of  a 
good  action  cannot  be  given  by  any  power,  but  that  it  is 
the  natural  result  of  the  good  action.  The  free  man,  guided 
by  intelligence,  knows  that  his  reward  is  in  the  nature  of 
things,  and  not  in  the  caprice  even  of  the  Infinite.  He  is 
jaot  a  good  and  faithful  servant,  he  is  an  intelligent  free 
man. 


INTERVIEWS,  489 

The  vicious  are  ignorant ;  real  morality  is  the  child  of 
intelligence ;  the  free  and  intelligent  man  knows  that  every 
action  must  be  judged  by  its  consequences;  he  knows  that 
if  he  does  good  he  reaps  a  good  harvest ;  he  knows  that  if 
he  does  evil  he  bears  a  burden,  and  he  knows  that  these 
good  and  evil  consequences  are  not  determined  by  an  in- 
finite master,  but  that  they  live  in  and  are  produced  by  the 

actions   themselves, — Evening  Advertiser,  New  York,  February  6, 1892= 

WORD  PAINTING  AND  COLLEGE  EDUCATION. 

Qziestion.  What  is  the  history  of  the  speech  delivered 
here  in  1876  ?     Was  it  extemporaneous? 

Answer.  It  was  not  bom  entirely  of  the  occasion.  It 
took  me  several  years  to  put  the  thoughts  in  form — to 
paint  the  pictures  with  words.  No  man  can  do  his  best  on 
the  instant.  Iron  to  be  beaten  into  perfect  form  has  to  be 
heated  several  times  and  turned  upon  the  anvil  many  more, 
and  hammered  long  and  often. 

You  might  as  well  try  to  paint  a  picture  with  one  sweep 
of  the  brush,  or  chisel  a  statue  with  one  stroke,  as  to  paint 
many  pictures  with  words,  without  great  thought  and  care. 
Now  and  then  while  a  man  is  talking,  heated  with  his  sub- 
ject, a  great  thought,  sudden  as  a  flash  of  lightning,  illu- 
mines the  intellectual  sky,  and  a  great  sentence  clothed  in 
words  of  purple,  falls,  or  rather  rushes,  from  his  lips — but 
a  continuous  flight  is  bom,  not  only  of  enthusiasm,  but  of 
long  and  careful  thought.  A  perfect  picture  requires  more 
details,  more  lights  and  shadows,  than  the  mind  can  grasp 
at  once,  or  on  the  instant.  Thoughts  are  not  born  of  chance. 
They  grow  and  bud  and  blossom,  and  bear  the  fruit  of 
perfect  form. 

Genius  is  the  soil  and  climate,  but  the  soil  must  be  culti- 
vated, and  the  harvest  is  not  instantly  after  the  planting. 
It  takes  time  and  labor  to  raise  and  harvest  a  crop  from 
that  field  called  the  brain. 


490 


INTERVIEWS. 


QuesHoft.  Do  you  think  young  men  need  a  college  educa- 
tion to  get  along  ? 

Answer.  Probably  many  useless  things  are  taught  in  col- 
leges. I  think,  as  a  rule,  too  much  time  is  wasted  learning 
the  names  of  the  cards  without  learning  to  play  a  game.  I 
think  a  young  man  should  be  taught  something  that  he  can 
use — something  that  he  can  sell.  After  coming  from  col- 
lege he  should  be  better  equipped  to  battle  with  the  world — 
to  do  something  of  use.  A  man  may  have  his  brain  stuffed 
with  Greek  and  Latin  without  being  able  to  fill  his  stomach 
with  anything  of  importance.  Still,  I  am  in  favor  of  the 
highest  education.  I  would  like  to  see  splendid  schools  in 
every  State,  and  then  a  university,  and  all  scholars  passing 
a  certain  examination  sent  to  the  State  university  free,  and 
then  a  United  States  university,  the  best  in  the  world,  and 
all  graduates  of  the  State  universities  passing  a  certain  ex- 
amination sent  to  the  United  States  university  free.  We 
ought  to  have  in  this  country  the  best  library,  the  best 
university,  the  best  school  of  design  in  the  world  ;  and  so 
I  say,  more  money  for  the  mind. 

Question.  Was  the  peculiar  conduct  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Park- 
hurst,  of  New  York,  justifiable,  and  do  you  think  that  it 
had  a  tendency  to  help  morality  ? 

Answer.  If  Christ  had  written  a  decoy  letter  to  the  woman 
to  whom  he  said:  "Go  and  sin  no  more,"  and  if  he  had  dis- 
guised himself  and  visited  her  house  and  had  then  lodged  a 
complaint  against  her  before  the  police  and  testified  against 
her,  taking  one  of  his  disciples  with  him,  I  do  not  think  he 
would  have    added   to  his  reputation. — The  News,  inos^n^^ws^ 

Indiana,  February  18, 1892. 


PERSONAL  MAGNETISM  AND  THE  SUNDAY 
QUESTION. 

Colonel  Ingersoll  was  a  picturesque  figure  as  he  sat  in  his  room  at 
the  Gibson  House  yesterday,  while  the  balmy  May  breeze  blew 
through  the  open  windows,  fluttered  the  lace  curtains  and  tossed  the 
great  Infidel's  snowy  hair  to  and  fro.  The  Colonel  had  come  in  from 
New  York  during  the  morning  and  the  keen  white  sunlight  of  a  lovely 
May  day  filled  his  heart  with  gladness.  After  breakfast,  the  man  who 
preaches  the  doctrine  of  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  Gospel  of  Humanity 
and  the  while  chaffs  the  gentlemen  of  the  clerical  profession,  was  in 
a  fine  humor.  He  was  busy  with  cards  and  callers,  but  not  too  busy 
to  admire  the  vase  full  of  freshly-picked  spring  flowers  that  stood  on 
the  mantel,  and  wrestled  with  clouds  of  cigar  smoke,  to  see  which 
fragrance  should  dominate  the  atmosphere. 

To  a  reporter  of  The  Commercial  Gazette,  the  Colonel  spoke  freely 
and  interestingly  upon  a  variety  of  subjects,  from  personal  magnetism 
in  politics  to  mob  rule  in  Tennessee.  He  had  been  interested  in 
Colonel  Weir's  statement  about  the  lack  of  gas  in  Exposition  Hall,  at 
the  1876  convention,  and  when  asked  if  he  believed  there  was  any 
truth  in  the  stories  that  the  gas  supply  had  been  manipulated  so  as  to 
prevent  the  taking  of  a  ballot  after  he  had  placed  James  G.  Blaine  in 
nomination,  he  rephed : 

All  I  can  say  is,  that  I  heard  such  a  story  the  day  after 
the  convention,  but  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  it  is  true. 
I  have  always  believed,  that  if  a  vote  had  been  taken  that 
evening,  Blaine  would  have  been  nominated,  possibly  not 
as  the  effect  of  my  speech,  but  the  night  gave  time  for  trad- 
ing, and  that  is  always  dangerous  in  a  convention.  I 
believed  then  that  Blaine  ought  to  have  been  nominated, 
and  that  it  would  have  been  a  very  wise  thing  for  the  party 
to  have  done.  That  he  was  not  the  candidate  was  due 
partly  to  accident  and  partly  to  political  trafi&c,  but  that  is 
one  of  the  bygones,  and  I  believe  there  is  an  old  saying  to 
the  effect  that  even  the  gods  have  no  mastery  over  the  past. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  eloquence  is  potent  in  a 
convention  to  set  aside  the  practical  work  of  politics  and 
politicians  ?  (4ei) 


492  INTBRVIEWS. 

Answer.  I  think  all  tlie  eloquence  in  the  world  cannot 
affect  a  trade  if  the  parties  to  the  contract  stand  firm,  and 
when  people  have  made  a  political  trade  they  are  not  the 
kind  of  people  to  be  affected  by  eloquence.  The  practical 
work  of  the  world  has  very  little  to  do  with  eloquence. 
There  are  a  great  many  thousand  stone  masons  to  one 
sculptor,  and  houses  and  walls  are  not  constructed  by 
sculptors,  but  by  masons.  The  daily  wants  of  the  world 
are  supplied  by  the  practical  workers,  by  men  of  talent,  not 
by  men  of  genius,  although  in  the  world  of  invention, 
genius  has  done  more,  it  may  be,  than  the  workers  them- 
selves. I  fancy  the  machinery  now  in  the  world  does  the 
work  of  many  hundreds  of  millions;  that  there  is  machinery 
enough  now  to  do  several  times  the  work  that  could  be  done 
by  all  the  men,  women  and  children  ot  the  earth.  The 
genius  who  invented  the  reaper  did  more  work  and  will  do 
more  work  in  the  harvest  field  than  thousands  of  millions 
of  men,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  great  engines  that 
drive  the  locomotives  and  the  ships.  All  these  marvelous 
machines  were  made  by  men  of  genius,  but  they  are  not 
the  men  who  in  fact  do  the  work. 

This  led  the  Colonel  to  pay  a  brilliant  tribute  to  the  great  orators 
of  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  peer  of  all  of  them  being  Cicero. 
He  dissected  and  defined  oratory  and  eloquence,  and  explained 
with  picturesque  figures,  wherein  the  difference  between  them  lay. 
As  he  mentioned  the  magnetism  of  public  speakers,  he  was  asked  as 
to  his  opinion  of  the  value  of  personal  magnetism  in  political  life. 

It  may  be  difficult  to  define  what  personal  magnetism  is, 
but  I  think  it  may  be  defined  in  this  way:  You  don't 
always  feel  like  asking  a  man  whom  you  meet  on  the  street 
what  direction  you  should  take  to  reach  a  certain  point. 
You  often  allow  three  or  four  to  pass,  before  you  meet  one 
who  seems  to  invite  the  question.  So,  too,  there  are  men  by 
whose  side  you  may  sit  for  hours  in  the  cars  without  ven- 
turing a  remark  as  to  the  weather,  and  there  are  others  to 


interviews;  493 

■whom  you  will  commence  talking  the  moment  you  sit 
down.  There  are  some  men  who  look  as  if  they  would 
grant  a  favor,  men  toward  whom  you  are  unconsciously 
drawn,  men  who  have  a  real  human  look,  men  with  whom 
you  seem  to  be  acquainted  almost  before  you  speak,  and 
that  you  really  like  before  you  know  anything  about  them. 
It  may  be  that  we  are  all  electric  batteries ;  that  we  have  our 
positive  and  our  negative  poles ;  it  may  be  that  we  need 
some  influence  that  certain  others  impart,  and  it  may  be  that 
certain  others  have  that  which  we  do  not  need  and  which 
we  do  not  want,  and  the  moment  you  think  that,  you  feel 
annoyed  and  hesitate,  and  uncomfortable,  and  possibly 
hateful. 

I  suppose  there  is  a  physical  basis  for  everything.  Pos- 
sibly the  best  test  of  real  affection  between  man  and  woman, 
or  of  real  friendship  between  man  and  woman,  is  that  they 
can  sit  side  by  side,  for  hours  maybe,  without  speaking,  and 
yet  be  having  a  really  social  time,  each  feeling  that  the 
other  knows  exactly  what  they  are  thinking  about.  Now, 
the  man  you  meet  and  whom  you  would  not  hesitate  a 
moment  to  ask  a  favor  of,  is  what  I  call  a  magnetic  man. 
This  magnetism,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  assists  in  making 
friends,  and  of  course  is  a  great  help  to  any  one  who  deals 
with  the  public.  Men  like  a  magnetic  man  even  without 
knowing  him,  perhaps  simply  having  seen  him.  There  are 
other  men,  whom  the  moment  you  shake  hands  with  them, 
you  feel  you  want  no  more ;  you  have  had  enough.  A  sudden 
chill  runs  up  the  arm  the  moment  your  hand  touches 
theirs,  and  finally  reaches  the  heart ;  you  feel,  if  you  had  held 
that  hand  a  moment  longer,  an  icicle  would  have  formed  in 
the  brain.  Such  people  lack  personal  magnetism.  These 
people  now  and  then  thaw  out  when  you  get  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  them,  and  you  find  that  the  ice  is  all  on  the 
outside,  and  then  j^ou  come  to  like  them  very  well,  but  as 
a  rule  first  impressions  are  lasting.     Magnetism  is  what 


494  INTERVIEWS. 

you  miglit  call  the  climate  of  a  man.  Some  men,  and  some 
women,  look  like  a  perfect  June  day,  and  there  are  others 
who,  while  they  look  quite  smiling,  yet  you  feel  that  the 
sky  is  becoming  overcast,  and  the  signs  all  point  to  an  early 
storm.  There  are  people  who  are  autumnal — that  is  to  say, 
generous.  They  have  had  their  harvest,  and  have  plenty 
to  spare.  Others  look  like  the  end  of  an  exceedingly  hard 
winter — between  the  hay  and  grass,  the  hay  mostly  gone 
and  the  grass  not  yet  come  up.  So  you  will  see  that  I 
think  a  great  deal  of  this  thing  that  is  called  magnetism. 
As  I  said,  there  are  good  people  who  are  not  magnetic,  but 
I  do  not  care  to  make  an  Arctic  expedition  for  the  purpose 
of  discovering  the  north  pole  of  their  character.  I  would 
rather  stay  with  those  who  make  me  feel  comfortable  at  the 
first. 

From  personal  magnetism  to  the  lynching  Saturday  morning  down 
at  Nashville,  Tennessee,  was  a  far  cry,  but  when  Colonel  Ingersoll 
was  asked  what  he  thought  of  mob  law,  whether  there  was  any  extenu- 
ation, any  propriety  and  moral  effect  resultant  from  it,  he  quickly 
answered : 

I  do  not  believe  in  mob  law  at  any  time,  among  any 
people.  I  believe  in  justice  being  meted  out  in  accordance 
with  the  forms  of  law.  If  a  community  violates  that  law, 
why  should  not  the  individual  ?  The  example  is  bad.  Be- 
sides all  that,  no  punishment  inflicted  by  a  mob  tends  to 
prevent  the  commission  of  crime.  Horrible  punishment 
hardens  the  community,  and  that  in  itself  produces  more 
crime. 

There  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  fascination  in  frightful 
punishments,  but,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  all  these  things 
demoralize  the  community.  In  some  countries,  you  know, 
they  whip  people  for  petty  offences.  The  whipping,  how- 
ever, does  no  good,  and  on  the  other  hand  it  does  harm ;  it 
hardens  those  who  administer  the  punishment  and  those 
who  witness  it,  and  it  degrades  those  who  receive  it.  There 
will  be  but  little  charity  in  the  world^and  but  little  progress 


INTERVIEWS.  495 

until  men  see  clearly  that  there  is  no  chance  in  the  world  of 
conduct  any  more  than  in  the  physical  world. 

Back  of  every  act  and  dream  and  thought  and  desire 
and  virtue  and  crime  is  the  efficient  cause.  If  you  wish  to 
change  mankind,  you  must  change  the  conditions.  There 
should  be  no  such  thing  as  punishment.  We  should 
endeavor  to  reform  men,  and  those  who  cannot  be  reformed 
should  be  placed  where  they  cannot  injure  their  fellows. 
The  State  should  never  take  revenge  any  more  than  the 
community  should  form  itself  into  a  mob  and  take  revenge. 
This  does  harm,  not  good.  The  time  will  come  when  the 
world  will  no  more  think  of  sending  men  to  the  penitentiary 
for  stealing,  as  a  punishment,  than  it  will  for  sending  a 
man  to  the  penitentiary  because  he  has  consumption.  When 
that  time  comes,  the  object  will  be  to  reform  men;  to  pre- 
vent crime  instead  of  punishing  it,  and  the  object  then  will 
be  to  make  the  conditions  such  that  honest  people  will  be 
the  result,  but  as  long  as  hundreds  of  thousands  of  human 
beings  live  in  tenements,  as  long  as  babes  are  raised  in 
gutters,  as  long  as  competition  is  so  sharp  that  hundreds  of 
thousands  must  of  necessity  be  failures,  just  so  long  you 
will  have  your  jails  and  your  prisons  full.  Just  as  long  as 
society  gets  down  on  its  knees  before  the  great  and  success- 
ful thieves,  before  the  millionaire  thieves,  just  so  long  will 
it  have  to  fill  the  jails  and  prisons  with  the  little  thieves. 
When  the  "  good  time"  comes,  men  will  not  be  judged  by 
the  money  they  have  accumulated,  but  by  the  uses  they 
make  of  it.  So  men  will  be  judged,  not  according  to 
their  intelligence,  but  by  what  they  are  endeavoring  to 
accomplish  with  their  intelligence.  In  other  words,  the 
time  will  come  when  character  will  rise  above  all.  There 
is  a  great  line  in  Shakespeare  that  I  have  often  quoted,  and 
that  cannot  be  quoted  too  often  :  "There  is  no  darkness  but 
ignorance."  Let  the  world  set  itself  to  work  to  dissipate 
this  darkness  ;  let  us  fiocd  the  world  with  intellectual  light. 


496  INTERVIEWS, 

This  cannot  be  accomplished  by  mobs  or  lynchers.  It 
must  be  done  by  the  noblest,  by  the  greatest,  and  by  the 
best. 

The  conversation  shifting  around  to  the  Sunday  question  ;  the 
opening  of  the  World's  Fair  on  Sunday,  the  attacks  of  the  pulpit  upon 
the  Sunday  newspapers,  the  opening  of  parks  and  museums  and 
libraries  on  Sunday,  Colonel  Ingersoll  waxed  eloquent,  and  in  answer 
to  many  questions  uttered  these  paragraphs  : 

Of  course,  people  will  think  I  have  some  prejudice  against 
the  parsons,  but  really  I  think  the  newspaper  press  is  of 
far  more  importance  in  the  world  than  the  pulpit.  If  I 
should  admit  in  a  kind  of  burst  of  generosity,  and  simply 
for  the  sake  of  making  a  point,  that  the  pulpit  can  do  some 
good,  how  much  can  it  do  without  the  aid  of  the  press  ? 
Here  is  a  parson  preaching  to  a  few  ladies  and  enough  men, 
it  may  be,  to  pass  the  contribution  box,  and  all  he  says  dies 
within  the  four  walls  of  that  church.  How  many  ministers 
would  it  take  to  reform  the  world,  provided  I  again  admit 
in  a  burst  of  generosity,  that  there  is  any  reforming  power 
in  what  they  preach,  working  along  that  line  ? 

The  Sunday  newspaper,  I  think,  is  the  best  of  any  day  in 
the  week.  That  paper  keeps  hundreds  and  thousands  at 
home.  You  can  find  in  it  information  about  almost  every- 
thing in  the  world.  One  of  the  great  Sunday  papers  will 
keep  a  family  busy  reading  almost  all  day.  Now,  I  do  not 
wonder  that  the  ministers  are  opposed  to  the  Sunday  news- 
paper, and  so  they  are  opposed  to  anything  calculated  to 
decrease  the  attendance  at  church.  Why,  they  want  all  the 
parks,  all  the  museums,  all  the  libraries  closed  on  Sunday, 
and  they  want  the  World's  Fair  closed  on  Sunday. 

Now,  I  am  in  favor  of  Sunday ;  in  fact,  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  have  two  of  them  a  week,  but  I  want  Sunday  as 
a  day  of  recreation  and  pleasure.  The  fact  is  we  ought  not 
to  work  hard  enough  during  the  week  to  require  a  day  of 
rest.  Every  day  ought  to  be  so  arranged  that  there  would 
be  time  for  rest  from  the  labor  of  that  dayo     Sunday  is  a 


INTERVIEWS,  497 

good  day  to  get  business  out  of  your  mind,  to  forget  the 
ledger  and  the  docket  and  the  ticker,  to  forget  profits  and 
losses,  and  enjoy  yourself.  It  is  a  good  day  to  go  to  the 
art  museums,  to  look  at  pictures  and  statues  and  beautiful 
things,  so  that  you  may  feel  that  there  is  something  in  this 
world  besides  money  and  mud.  It  is  a  good  day,  is  Sunday, 
to  go  to  the  libraries  and  spend  a  little  time  with  the  great 
and  splendid  dead,  and  to  go  to  the  cemetery  and  think  of 
those  who  are  sleeping  there,  and  to  give  a  little  thought  to 
the  time  when  you,  too,  like  them,  will  fall  asleep.  I  think 
it  is  a  good  day  for  almost  anything  except  going  to  church. 
There  is  no  need  of  that ;  everybody  knows  the  story,  and 
if  a  man  has  worked  hard  all  the  week,  you  can  hardly  call 
it  recreation  if  he  goes  to  church  Sunday  and  hears  that  his 
chances  are  ninety-nine  in  a  hundred  in  favor  of  being 
eternally  damned. 

So  it  is  I  am  in  favor  of  having  the  World's  Fair  open  on 
Sunday^  It  will  be  a  good  day  to  look  at  the  best  the 
world  has  produced ;  a  good  day  to  leave  the  saloons  and 
commune  for  a  little  while  with  the  mighty  spirits  that  have 
glorified  this  world.  Sunday  is  a  good  day  to  leave  the 
churches,  where  they  teach  that  man  has  become  totally 
depraved,  and  look  at  the  glorious  things  that  have  been 
wrought  by  these  depraved  beings.  Besides  all  this,  it  is 
the  day  of  days  for  the  working  man  and  working  woman, 
for  those  who  have  to  work  all  the  week.  In  New  York  an 
effort  was  made  to  open  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art 
on  Sunday,  and  the  pious  people  opposed  it.  They  thought 
it  would  interfere  with  the  joy  of  heaven  if  people  were 
seen  in  the  park  enjoying  themselves  on  Sunday,  and  they 
also  held  that  nobody  would  visit  the  Museum  if  it  were 
opened  on  Sunday ;  that  the  '*  common  people  "  had  no  love 
for  pictures  and  statues  and  cared  nothing  about  art.  The 
doors  were  opened,  and  it  was  demonstrated  that  the  poor 
people,  the  toilers  and  workers,  did  want  to  see  such  things 


498  INTERVIEWS. 

on  Sunday,  and  now  more  people  visit  the  Museum  on  Sun- 
day than  on  all  the  other  days  of  the  week  put  together. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  public  libraries.  There  is  some- 
thing to  me  infinitely  pharisaical,  hj'pocritical  and  farcical 
in  this  Sunday  nonsense.  The  rich  people  who  favor  keep- 
ing Sunday  "  holy,"  have  their  coachman  drive  them  to 
church  and  wait  outside  until  the  services  end.  What  do 
they  care  about  the  coachman's  soul  ?  While  they  are  at 
church  their  cooks  are  bus}^  at  home  getting  dinner  ready. 
What  do  they  care  for  the  souls  of  cooks  ?  The  whole 
thing  is  pretence,  and  nothing  but  pretence.  It  is  the  in- 
stinct of  business.  It  is  the  competition  of  the  gospel  shop 
with  other  shops  and  places  of  resort. 

The  ministers,  of  course,  are  opposed  to  all  shows  except 
their  own,  for  they  know  that  very  few  will  come  to  see  or 
hear  them  and  the  choice  must  be  the  church  or  nothing. 

I  do  not  believe  that  one  day  can  be  more  holy  than 
another  unless  more  joyous  than  another.  The  holiest  day 
is  the  happiest  day — the  day  on  which  wives  and  children 
and  men  are  happiest.     In  that  sense  a  day  can  be  holy. 

Our  idea  of  the  Sabbath  is  from  the  Puritans,  and  they 
imagined  that  a  man  has  to  be  miserable  in  order  to  excite 
the  love  of  God.  We  have  outgrown  the  old  New  England 
Sabbath — the  old  Scotch  horror.  The  Germans  have  helped 
us  and  have  set  a  splendid  example.  I  do  not  see  how  a 
poor  workingman  can  go  to  church  for  recreation — I  mean 
an  orthodox  church.  A  man  who  has  hell  here  cannot  be 
benefited  by  being  assured  that  he  is  likely  to  have  hell 
hereafter.     The  whole  business  I  hold  in  perfect  abhorrence. 

They  tell  us  that  God  will  not  prosper  us  unless  we 
observe  the  Sabbath.  The  Jews  kept  the  Sabbath  and  yet 
Jehovah  deserted  them,  and  they  are  a  people  without  a 
nation.  The  Scotch  kept  Sunday ;  they  are  not  independent 
The  French  never  kept  Sunday,  and  yet  are  the  most  pros- 
perous nation    in  Europe. — Commercial  Guze^^e,C'mcinnditi,  Ohio,  May 


AUTHORSe 

Question.  Who,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  greatest  novelist 
who  has  written  in  the  English  language  ? 

Answer.  The  greatest  novelist,  in  vclj  opinion,  who  has 
ever  written  in  the  English  language,  was  Charles  Dickens. 
He  was  the  greatest  observer  since  Shakespeare,  He  had 
the  eyes  that  see,  the  ears  that  really  hear.  I  place  him 
above  Thackera3^  Dickens  wrote  for  the  home,  for  the  great 
public.  Thackeray  wrote  for  the  clubs.  The  greatest  novel 
in  our  language — and  it  may  be  in  any  other — is,  according 
to  my  idea,  "  A  Tale  of  Two  Cities."  In  that,  are  philoso- 
phy, pathos,  self-sacrifice,  wit,  humor,  the  grotesque  and 
the  tragic.  I  think  it  is  the  most  artistic  novel  that  I  have 
read.  The  creations  of  Dickens'  brain  have  become  the 
citizens  of  the  world. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  American  writers  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Emerson  was  a  fine  writer,  and  he  did 
this  world  a  great  deal  of  good,  but  I  do  not  class  him  with 
the  first.  Some  of  his  poetry  is  wonderfully  good  and  in  it 
are  some  of  the  deepest  and  most  beautiful  lines.  I  think 
he  was  a  poet  rather  than  a  philosopher.  His  doctrine  of 
compensation  would  be  delightful  if  it  had  the  facts  to  sup- 
port it. 

Of  course,  Hawthorne  was  a  great  writer.  His  style  is  a 
little  monotonous,  but  the  matter  is  good.  **The  Marble 
Faun  "  is  by  far  his  best  effort.  I  shall  always  regret  that 
Hawthorne  wrote  the  life  of  Franklin  Pierce. 

Walt  Whitman  w^ill  hold  a  high  place  among  American 
writers.  His  poem  on  the  death  of  Lincoln,  entitled  "  When 
Lilacs  Last  in  the  Dooryard  Bloom'd,"  is  the  greatest  ever 
written  on  this  continent.    He  was  a  natural  poet  and  wrote 

(499) 


500  INTERVIEWS. 

lines  worthy  of  America.  He  was  the  poet  of  democracyj 
of  individuality,  and  of  liberty.  He  was  worthy  of  the 
great  Republic. 

Question.  How  about  Henry  George's  books? 

Answer,  Henry  George  wrote  a  wonderful  book,  and 
one  that  arrested  the  attention  of  the  world — one  of  the 
greatest  books  of  the  century.  While  I  do  not  believe  in 
his  destructive  theories,  I  gladly  pay  a  tribute  to  his  sincer- 
ity and  his  genius. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Bellamy  ? 

Answer,  I  do  not  think  what  is  called  nationalism  of  the 
Bellamy  kind  is  making  any  particular  progress  in  this 
country.  We  are  believers  in  individual  independence,  and 
will  be,  I  hope,  forever. 

Boston  was  at  one  time  the  literary  center  of  the  country, 
but  the  best  writers  are  not  living  there  now.  The  best 
novelists  of  our  country  are  not  from  Boston.  Edgar 
Fawcett  lives  in  New  York.  Howells  was  born,  I  believe, 
in  Ohio,  and  Julian  Hawthorne  lives  in  New  Jersey  or  on 
Long  Island.  Among  the  poets,  James  Whitcomb  Riley  is 
a  native  of  Indiana,  and  he  has  written  some  of  the  daintiest 
and  sweetest  things  in  American  literature.  Edgar  Faw- 
cett is  a  great  poet.  His  "  Magic  Flower  "  is  as  beautiful 
as  anything  Tennyson  has  ever  written,  Eugene  Field  of 
Chicago,  has  written  some  charming  things,  natural  and 
touching. 

Westward  the  star  of  literature  takes  its  course. — TheStar^ 

Kansas  City,  Mo.,  May  26, 1898. 


INEBRIETY.* 

Qtiestion.  Do  you  consider  inebriety  a  disease,  or  the 
result  of  diseased  conditions  ? 

Answer,  I  believe  that  by  a  long  and  continuous  use  of 
stimulants,  the  system  gets  in  such  a  condition  that  it  im- 
peratively demands  not  only  the  usual,  but  an  increased 
stimulant.  After  a  time,  every  nerve  becomes  hungry,  and 
there  is  in  the  body  of  the  man  a  cry,  coming  from  every 
nerve,  for  nourishment.  There  is  a  kind  of  famine,  and 
unless  the  want  is  supplied,  insanity  is  the  resulto  This 
hunger  of  the  nerves  drowns  the  voice  of  reason — cares 
nothing  for  argument — nothing  for  experience — nothing 
for  the  sufferings  of  others — nothing  for  anything,  except 
for  the  food  it  requires.  Words  are  wasted,  advice  is  of 
no  possible  use,  argument  is  like  reasoning  with  the  dead. 
The  man  has  lost  the  control  of  his  will — it  has  been  won 
over  to  the  side  of  the  nerves.  He  imagines  that  if  the 
nerves  are  once  satisfied  he  can  then  resume  the  control 
of  himself.  Of  course,  this  is  a  mistake,  and  the  more 
the  nerves  are  satisfied,  the  more  imperative  is  their  de- 
mand. Arguments  are  not  of  the  slightest  force.  The 
knowledge — the  conviction — that  the  course  pursued  is 
wrong,  has  no  effect.  The  man  is  in  the  grasp  of  appetite. 
He  is  like  a  ship  at  the  mercy  of  wind  and  wave  and  tide. 
The  fact  that  the  needle  of  the  compass  points  to  the 
north  has  no  effect — the  compas?  is  not  a  force — it  cannot 
battle  with  the  wind  and  tide — and  so,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  needle  points  to  the  north,  the  ship  is  stranded  on 
the  rocks. 

♦  Published  from  notes  found   among  Colonel  Ingersoli's  papers,  evidently  written 
soon  after  the  discovery  of  the  '  Keeley  Cure."  (501) 


502  INTERVIEWS. 

So  the  fact  that  the  man  knows  that  he  should  not  drink 
has  not  the  slightest  effect  upon  him.  The  sophistry  of 
passion  outweighs  all  that  reason  can  urge.  In  other 
words,  the  man  is  the  victim  of  disease,  and  until  the 
disease  is  arrested,  his  will  is  not  his  own.  He  may  wish 
to  reform,  but  wish  is  not  will.  He  knows  all  of  the  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  temperance — he  knows  all  about  the  dis- 
tress of  wife  and  child — all  about  the  loss  of  reputation  and 
character — all  about  the  chasm  toward  which  he  is  drift- 
ing— and  yet,  not  being  the  master  of  himself,  he  goes  with 
the  tide. 

For  thousands  of  years  society  has  sought  to  do  away 
with  inebriety  by  argument,  by  example,  by  law  ;  and  yet 
millions  and  millions  have  been  carried  away  and  countless 
thousands  have  become  victims  of  alcohol.  In  this  contest 
words  have  always  been  worthless,  for  the  reason  that  no 
argument  can  benefit  a  man  who  has  lost  control  of  himself. 

Question.  As  a  lawyer,  will  you  express  an  opinion  as  to 
the  moral  and  legal  responsibility  of  a  victim  of  alcoholism  ? 

Answer.  Personally,  I  regard  the  moral  and  legal  respon- 
sibility of  all  persons  as  being  exactly  the  same.  All  per- 
sons do  as  they  must.  If  you  wish  to  change  the  conduct 
of  an  individual  you  must  change  his  conditions — other- 
wise his  actions  will  remain  the  same. 

We  are  beginning  to  find  that  there  is  no  effect  without 
a  cause,  and  that  the  conduct  of  individuals  is  not  an  ex- 
ception to  this  law.  Every  hope,  every  fear,  every  dream, 
every  virtue,  every  crime,  has  behind  it  an  efficient  cause. 
Men  do  neither  right  nor  wrong  by  chance.  In  the  world 
of  fact  and  in  the  world  of  conduct,  as  well  as  in  the  world 
of  imagination,  there  is  no  room,  no  place,  for  chance. 

Question.  In  the  case  of  an  inebriate  who  has  committed 
a  crime,  what  do  you  think  of  the  common  judicial  opinion 
that  such  a  criminal  is  as  deserving  of  punishment  as  a 
person  not  inebriated  ? 


INTERVIEWS,  503 

Answer.  I  see  no  difference.  Believing  as  I  do  that  all 
persons  act  as  they  must,  it  makes  not  the  slightest  differ- 
ence whether  the  person  so  acting  is  what  we  call  inebriated, 
or  sane,  or  insane — he  acts  as  he  must. 

There  should  be  no  such  thing  as  punishment.  Society 
should  protect  itself  by  such  means  as  intelligence  and  hu- 
manity, may  suggest,  but  the  idea  of  punishment  is  bar- 
barous. No  man  ever  was,  no  man  ever  will  be,  made 
better  by  punishment.  Society  should  have  two  objects  in 
view  :  first,  the  defence  of  itself,  and  second,  the  reforma- 
tion of  the  so-called  criminal. 

The  world  has  gone  on  fining,  imprisoning,  torturing  and 
killing  the  victims  of  condition  and  circumstance,  and  con- 
dition and  circumstance  have  gone  on  producing  the  same 
kind  of  men  and  women  year  after  year  and  century  after 
century — and  all  this  is  so  completely  within  the  control  of 
cause  and  effect,  within  the  scope  and  jurisdiction  of  uni- 
versal law,  that  we  can  prophesy  the  number  of  criminals 
for  the  next  year — the  thieves  and  robbers  and  murderers 
— with  almost  absolute  certainty. 

There  are  just  so  many  mistakes  committed  every  year — 
so  many  crimes — so  many  heartless  and  foolish  things  done 
— and  it  does  not  seem  to  be — at  least  by  the  present 
methods — possible  to  increase  or  decrease  the  number. 

We  have  thousands  and  thousands  of  pulpits,  and  thou- 
sands of  moralists,  and  countless  talkers  and  advisers,  but 
all  these  sermons,  and  all  the  advice,  and  all  the  talk,  seem 
utterly  powerless  in  the  presence  of  cause  and  effect. 
Mothers  may  pray,  wives  may  weep,  children  may  starve, 
but  the  great  procession  moves  on. 

For  thousands  of  j^ears  the  world  endeavored  to  save  it- 
self from  disease  by  ceremonies,  by  genuflections,  by 
prayers,  by  an  appeal  to  the  charity  and  mercy  of  heaven 
— but  the  diseases  flourished  and  the  graveyards  became 
populous,  and  all  the  ceremonies  and  all  the  prayers  were 


504  INTERVIEWS. 

without  the  slightest  effect.  We  must  at  last  recognize  the 
fact,  that  not  only  life,  but  conduct,  has  a  physical  basis. 
We  must  at  last  recognize  the  fact  that  virtue  and  vice, 
genius  and  stupidity,  are  born  of  certain  conditions. 

Question.  In  which  way  do  5''ou  think  the  reformation  or 
reconstruction  of  the  inebriate  is  to  be  effected — by  punish- 
ment, by  moral  suasion,  by  seclusion,  or  by  medical  treat" 
ment? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  punishment  simply  increases 
the  disease.  The  victim,  without  being  able  to  give  his 
reasons,  feels  that  punishment  is  unjust,  and  thus  feeling, 
the  effect  of  the  punishment  cannot  be  good. 

You  might  as  well  punish  a  man  for  having  the  con- 
sumption which  he  inherited  from  his  parents,  or  for  hav- 
ing a  contagious  disease  which  was  given  to  him  without 
his  fault,  as  to  punish  him  for  drunkenness.  No  one  wishes 
to  be  unhappy — no  one  wishes  to  destroy  his  own  well- 
being.  All  persons  prefer  happiness  to  unhappiness,  and 
success  to  failure.  Consequently,  you  might  as  well  punish 
a  man  for  being  unhappy,  and  thus  increase  his  unhappi- 
ness, as  to  punish  him  for  drunkenness.  In  neither  case  is 
he  responsible  for  what  he  suffers. 

Neither  can  j^ou  cure  this  man  by  what  is  called  moral 
suasion.  Moral  suasion,  if  it  amounts  to  anything,  is  the 
force  of  argument — that  is  to  say,  the  result  of  presenting 
the  facts  to  the  victim.  Now,  of  all  persons  in  the  world, 
the  victim  knows  the  facts.  He  knows  not  only  the  effect 
upon  those  who  love  him,  but  the  effect  upon  himself. 
There  are  no  words  that  can  add  to  his  vivid  appreciation 
of  the  situation.  There  is  no  language  so  eloquent  as  the 
sufferings  of  wife  and  children.  All  these  things  the 
drunkard  knows,  and  knows  perfectly,  and  knows  as  well 
as  any  other  human  being  can  know.  At  the  same  tim«^ 
he  feels  that  the  tide  and  current  of  passion  are  beyond  W^ 
power.     He  feels  that  he  cannot  row  against  the  stream 


INTERVIEWS.  505 

There  is  but  one  way,  and  that  is,  to  treat  the  drunkard 
as  the  victim  of  disease — 'treat  him  precisely  as  you  would 
a  man  with  a  fever,  as  a  man  suffering  from  smallpox,  or 
with  some  form  of  indigestion.  It  is  impossible  to  talk  a 
man  out  of  consumption,  or  to  reason  him  out  of  typhoid 
fever.  You  may  tell  him  that  he  ought  not  to  die,  that  he 
ought  to  take  into  consideration  the  condition  in  which  he 
would  leave  his  wife.  You  may  talk  to  him  about  his 
children — the  necessity  of  their  being  fed  and  educated — 
but  all  this  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  progress  of 
the  disease.  The  man  does  not  wish  to  die — he  wishes  to 
live — and  yet,  there  will  come  a  time  in  his  disease  when 
even  that  wish  to  live  loses  its  power  to  will,  and  the  man 
drifts  away  on  the  tide,  careless  of  life  or  death. 

So  it  is  with  drink.  Every  nerve  asks  for  a  stimulant. 
Every  drop  of  blood  cries  out  for  assistance,  and  in  spite  of 
all  argument,  in  spite  of  all  knowledge,  in  this  famine  of 
the  nerves,  a  man  loses  the  power  of  will.  Reason  abdi- 
cates the  throne,  and  hunger  takes  its  place. 

Question.  Will  you  state  your  reasons  for  your  belief? 
1      Aiiswer.  In  the  first  place,  I  will  give  a  reason  for  my 
tanbelief  in  what  is  called  moral  suasion  and  in  legislation. 

As  I  said  before,  for  thousands  and  thousands  of  years, 
fathers  and  mothers  and  daughters  and  sisters  and 
brothers  have  been  endeavoring  to  prevent  the  ones  they 
love  from  drink,  and  yet,  in  spite  of  everything,  millions 
have  gone  on  and  filled  at  last  a  drunkard's  grave.  So, 
societies  have  been  formed  all  over  the  world.  But  the 
consumption  of  ardent  spirits  has  steadily  increased.  Laws 
have  been  passed  in  nearly  all  the  nations  of  the  world  upon 
this  subject,  and  these  laws^  so  far  as  I  can  see,  have  done 
but  little,  if  any,  good. 

And  the  same  old  question  is  upon  us  now :  What  shall 
be  done  with  the  victims  of  drink?  There  have  been  prob- 
ably many  instances  in  which  men  have  signed  the  pledge 


506  INTERVIEWS. 

and  have  reformed.  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
reform  many  men,  in  certain  stages,  by  moral  suasion. 
Possibly,  many  men  can  be  reformed  in  certain  stages,  by 
law ;  but  the  per  cent,  is  so  small  that,  m  spite  of  that  per 
cent.,  the  average  increases.  For  these  reasons,  I  have  lost 
confidence  in  legislation  and  in  moral  suasion.  I  do  not 
say  what  legislation  may  do  by  way  of  prevention,  or 
what  moral  suasion  may  do  in  the  same  direction,  but  I  do 
say  that  after  men  have  become  the  victims  of  alcohol,  ad- 
vice and  law  seem  to  have  lost  their  force. 

I  believe  that  science  is  to  become  the  savior  of  man- 
kind. In  other  words,  every  appetite,  every  excess,  has  a 
physical  basis,  and  if  we  only  knew  enough  of  the  human 
system — of  the  tides  and  currents  of  thought  and  will  and 
wish — enough  of  the  storms  of  passion — if  we  only  knew 
how  the  brain  acts  and  operates — if  we  only  knew  the  rela- 
tion between  blood  and  thought,  between  thought  and  act 
— if  we  only  knew  the  conditions  of  conduct,  then  we  could, 
through  science,  control  the  paSvSions  of  the  human  race. 

When  I  first  heard  of  the  cure  of  inebriety  through  scien- 
tific means,  I  felt  that  the  morning  star  had  risen  in  the 
east — I  felt  that  at  last  we  were  finding  solid  ground.  I 
did  not  accept — being  of  a  skeptical  turn  of  mind — all  that 
I  heard  as  true.  I  preferred  to  hope,  and  wait.  I  have 
waited,  until  I  have  seen  men,  the  victims  of  alcohol,  in  the 
very  gutter  of  disgrace  and  despair,  lifted  from  the  mire, 
lescued  from  the  famine  of  desire,  from  the  grasp  of  appe- 
tite. I  have  seen  them  suddenly  become  men — masters  and 
monarchs  of  themselves. 


MIRACLES,  THEOSOPHY  AND  SPIRITUALISM. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a 
miracle,  or  that  there  has  ever  been  ? 

Answer.  Mr.  Locke  was  in  the  habit  of  sajang :  ''  Define 
your  terms."  So  the  first  question  is,  What  is  a  miracle  ? 
If  it  is  something  wonderful,  unusual,  inexplicable,  then 
there  have  been  many  miracles.  If  you  mean  simply  that 
which  is  inexplicable,  then  the  world  is  filled  with  miracles  ; 
but  if  you  mean  by  a  miracle,  something  contrary  to  the 
facts  in  nature,  then  it  seems  to  me  that  the  miracle  must 
be  admitted  to  be  an  impo.ssibility.  It  is  like  twice  two  are 
eleven  in  mathematics. 

If,  again,  we  take  the  ground  of  some  of  the  more  ad- 
vanced clergy,  that  a  miracle  is  in  accordance  with  the 
facts  in  nature,  but  with  facts  unknown  to  man,  then  we 
are  compelled  to  say  that  a  miracle  is  performed  by  a  divine 
sleight-of-hand  ;  as,  for  instance,  that  our  senses  are  de- 
ceived ;  or,  that  it  is  perfectly  simple  to  this  higher  intelli- 
gence, while  inexplicable  to  us.  If  we  give  this  explanation, 
then  man  has  been  imposed  upon  by  a  superior  intelligence. 
It  is  as  though  one  acquainted  with  the  sciences — with  the 
action  of  electricity — should  excite  the  wonder  of  savages 
by  sending  messages  to  his  partner.  The  savage  would 
say,  **A  miracle;"  but  the  one  who  sent  the  message  would 
say,  "  There  is  no  miracle  ;  it  is  in  accordance  with  facts  in 
nature  unknown  to  you."  So  that,  after  all,  the  word 
miracle  grows  in  the  soil  of  ignorance. 

The  question  arises  whether  a  superior  intelligence  ought 
to  impose  upon  the  inferior.  I  believe  there  was  a  French 
saint  who  had  his  head  cut  off  by  robbers,  and  this  saint, 
after  the  robbers  went  awaj-.  got  up,  took  his  head  under 

(507) 


5o8  INTERVIEWS. 

his  arm  and  went  on  his  way  until  he  found  friends  to  set 
it  on  right.  A  thing  like  this,  if  it  really  happened,  was  a 
miracle. 

So  it  may  be  said  that  nothing  is  much  more  miraculous 
than  the  fact  that  intelligent  men  believe  in  miracles.  If 
we  read  in  the  annals  of  China  that  several  thousand  years 
ago  five  thousand  people  were  fed  on  one  sandwich,  and 
that  several  sandwiches  were  left  over  after  the  feast,  there 
are  few  intelligent  men — except,  it  may  be,  the  editors  of 
religious  weeklies — who  would  credit  the  statement.  But 
many  intelligent  people,  reading  a  like  story  in  the  Hebrew, 
or  in  the  Greek,  or  in  a  mistranslation  from  either  of  these 
languages,  accept  the  story  without  a  doubt. 

So  if  we  should  find  in  the  records  of  the  Indians  that  a 
celebrated  medicine-man  of  their  tribe  used  to  induce  devils 
to  leave  crazy  people  and  take  up  their  abode  in  wild 
swine,  very  few  people  would  believe  the  story. 

I  believe  it  is  true  that  the  priest  of  one  religion  has 
never  had  the  slightest  confidence  in  the  priest  of  any  other 
religion. 

My  own  opinion  is,  that  nature  is  just  as  wonderful  one 
time  as  another ;  that  that  which  occurs  to-day  is  just  as 
miraculous  as  anything  that  ever  happened  ;  that  nothing 
is  more  wonderful  than  that  we  live — that  we  think — that 
we  convey  our  thoughts  by  speech,  by  gestures,  by  pictures. 

Nothing  is  more  wonderful  than  the  growth  of  grass — 
the  production  of  seed — the  bud,  the  blossom  and  the 
fruit.  In  other  words,  we  are  surrounded  by  the  inexpli- 
cable. 

All  that  happens  in  conformity  with  what  we  know,  we 
call  natural ;  and  that  which  is  said  to  have  happened,  not 
in  conformity  with  what  we  know,  we  say  is  wonderful  ; 
and  that  which  we  believe  to  have  happened  contrary  to 
what  we  know,  we  call  the  miraculous. 

I  think  the  truth  is,  that  nothing  ever  happened  except  in 


INTERVIEWS.  509 

a  natural  way  ;  that  behind  every  effect  has  been  an  effi- 
cient cause,  and  that  this  wondrous  procession  of  causes 
and  effects  has  never  been,  and  never  will  be,  broken.  In 
other  words,  there  is  nothing  superior  to  the  universe — 
nothing  that  can  interfere  with  this  procession  of  causes 
and  effects.  I  believe  in  no  miracles  in  the  theological 
sense.  My  opinion  is  that  the  universe  is,  forever  has 
been,  and  forever  will  be,  perfectly  natural. 

Whenever  a  religion  has  been  founded  among  barbarous 
and  ignorant  people,  the  founder  has  appealed  to  miracle 
as  a  kind  of  credential — as  an  evidence  that  he  is  in  part- 
nership with  some  higher  power.  The  credulity  of  savagery 
made  this  easy.  But  at  last  we  have  discovered  that  there 
is  no  necessary  relation  between  the  miraculous  and  the 
moral.  Whenever  a  man's  reason  is  developed  to  that 
point  that  he  sees  the  reasonableness  of  a  thing,  he  needs 
no  miracle  to  convince  him.  It  is  only  ignorance  or  cun- 
ning that  appeals  to  the  miraculous. 

There  is  another  thing,  and  that  is  this :  Truth  relies 
upon  itself — that  is  to  say,  upon  the  perceived  relation  be- 
tween itself  and  all  other  truths.  If  you  tell  the  facts,  you 
need  not  appeal  to  a  miracle.  It  is  only  a  mistake  or  a 
falsehood,  that  needs  to  be  propped  and  buttressed  b}^ 
wonders  and  miracles. 

Question.  What  is  your  explanation  of  the  miracles  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  a  miracle  cannot  be  explained. 
If  it  is  a  real  miracle,  there  is  no  explanation.  If  it  can  be 
explained,  then  the  miracle  disappears,  and  the  thing  was 
done  in  accordance  with  the  facts  and  forces  of  nature. 

In  a  time  when  not  one  it  may  be  in  many  thousands 
could  read  or  write,  when  language  was  rude,  and  when 
the  signs  by  which  thoughts  were  conveyed  were  few  and 
inadequate,  it  was  very  easy  to  make  mistakes,  and  nothing 
is  more  natural  than  for  a  mistake  to  grow  into  a  miracle. 


5IO  INTERVIEWS. 

In  an  ignorant  age,  historj^  for  the  most  part  depended  upon 
memory.  It  was  handed  down  from  the  old  in  their  dotage, 
to  the  young  without  judgment.  The  old  always  thought 
that  the  early  days  were  wonderful — that  the  world  was 
wearing  out  because  they  were.  The  past  looked  at 
through  the  haze  of  memory,  became  exaggerated,  gigantic. 
Their  fathers  v/ere  stronger  than  thej^,  and  their  grand- 
fathers far  superior  to  their  fathers,  and  so  on  until  they 
reached  men  who  had  the  habit  of  living  about  a  thousand 
years. 

In  my  judgment,  everything  in  the  Old  Testament  con- 
trary to  the  experience  of  the  civilized  world,  is  false.  I 
do  not  say  that  those  who  told  the  stories  knew  they  were 
false,  or  that  those  who  wTote  them  suspected  that  they 
were  not  true.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  lies  are  told 
by  honest  stupidity  and  believed  by  innocent  credulity. 
Then  again,  cunning  takes  advantage  of  credulity,  and 
selfish  intelligence  takes  advantage  of  ignorance,  and  so 
far  as  I  know,  through  all  the  history  of  the  world  a  good 
many  people  have  endeavored  to  make  a  living  without 
work. 

I  am  perfectly  convinced  of  the  integrity  of  nature — that 
the  elements  are  eternally  the  same — that  the  chemical 
affinities  and  hatreds  know  no  shadow  of  turning — that  just 
so  many  atoms  of  one  kind  combine  with  so  many  atoms  of 
another,  and  that  the  relative  numbers  have  never  changed 
and  will  never  change.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  attraction 
of  gravitation  is  a  permanent  institution ;  that  the  laws  of 
motion  have  been  the  same  that  they  forever  will  be. 
There  is  no  chance,  there  is  no  caprice.  Behind  every 
effect  is  a  cause,  and  :very  effect  must  in  its  turn  become 
a  cause,  and  only  that  is  produced  which  a  cause  of  neces- 
sity produces. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Madame  Blavatsky  and 
her  school   of  Theosophists  ?      Do  you  believe    Madame 


INTERVIEWS.  511 

Blavatsky  does  or  has  done  the  wonderful  things  related  of 
her?  Have  you  seen  or  known  of  any  Theosophical  or 
esoteric  marvels? 

Answer.  I  think  wonders  are  about  the  same  in  this 
country  that  they  are  in  India,  and  nothing  appears  more 
likely  to  me  simply  because  it  is  surrounded  with  the  mist 
of  antiquity.  In  my  judgment,  Madame  Blavatsky  has 
never  done  any  wonderful  things — that  is  to  say,  anything 
not  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  facts  of  nature. 

I  know  nothing  of  esoteric  marvels.  In  one  sense, 
everything  that  exists  is  a  marvel,  and  the  probability  is 
that  if  we  knew  the  history  of  one  grain  of  sand  we  would 
know  the  history  of  the  universe.  I  regard  the  universe  as 
a  unit.  Everything  that  happens  is  only  a  different  aspect 
of  that  unit.  There  is  no  room  for  the  marvelous — there 
is  no  space  in  which  it  can  operate — there  is  no  fulcrum  for 
its  lever.  The  universe  is  already  occupied  with  the 
natural.     The  ground  is  all  taken. 

It  may  be  that  all  these  people  are  perfectly  honest,  and 
imagine  that  they  have  had  wonderful  experiences.  I 
know  but  little  of  the  Theosophists — but  little  of  the 
Spiritualists.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  the  messages 
received  by  Spiritualists  are  remarkably  unimportant — that 
the}'-  tell  us  but  little  about  the  other  world,  and  just  as 
little  about  this — that  if  all  the  messages  supposed  to  have 
come  from  angelic  lips,  or  spiritual  lips,  were  destroyed, 
certainly  the  literature  of  the  world  would  lose  but  little. 
Some  of  these  people  are  exceedingly  intelligent,  and 
whenever  they  say  any  good  thing,  I  imagine  that  it  was 
produced  in  their  brain,  and  that  it  came  from  no  other 
world.  I  have  no  right  to  pass  upon  their  honesty.  Most 
of  them  may  be  sincere.  It  may  be  that  all  the  founders 
of  religions  have  really  supposed  themselves  to  be  in- 
spired— believed  that  they  held  conversations  with  angels 
and  Gods.     It  seems  to  be  easy  for  some  people  to  get  in 


512  INTERVIEWS. 

such  a  frame  of  mind  that  their  thoughts  become  realities, 
their  dreams  substances,  and  their  very  hopes  palpable. 

Personally,  I  have  no  sort  of  confidence  in  these  messages 
from  the  other  world.  There  may  be  mesmeric  forces — 
there  may  be  an  odic  force.  It  may  be  that  some  people 
can  tell  of  what  another  is  thinking.  I  have  seen  no  such 
people — at  least  I  am  not  acquainted  with  them — and  my 
own  opinion  is  that  no  such  persons  exist. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  the  spirits  of  the  dead  come 
back  to  earth  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not.  I  do  not  say  that  the  spirits  do  not 
come  back.  I  simply  say  that  I  know  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  do  not  believe  in  such  spirits,  simply  for  the  reason 
that  I  have  no  evidence  upon  which  to  base  such  a  belief. 
I  do  not  say  there  are  no  such  spirits,  for  the  reason  that 
my  knowledge  is  limited,  and  I  know  of  no  way  of  demon- 
strating the  non-existence  of  spirits. 

It  may  be  that  man  lives  forever,  and  it  may  be  that  what 
we  call  life  ends  with  what  we  call  death.  I  have  had  no 
experience  beyond  the  grave,  and  very  little  back  of  birth. 
Consequently,  I  cannot  say  that  I  have  a  belief  on  this  sub- 
ject. I  can  simply  say  that  I  have  no  knowledge  on  this 
subject,  and  know  of  no  fact  in  nature  that  I  would  use 
as  the  corner-stone  of  a  belief. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  ? 

Answer.  My  answer  to  that  is  about  the  same  as  to  the 
other  question.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  It  seems  to  me  an  exceedingly  absurd  belief — and 
yet  I  do  not  know.  I  am  told,  and  I  suppose  I  believe, 
that  the  atoms  that  are  in  me  have  been  in  mau}^  other 
people,  and  in  many  other  forms  of  life,  and  I  suppose  at 
death  the  atoms  forming  my  bodj^  go  back  to  the  earth 
and  are  used  in  countless  forms.  These  facts,  or  what  I 
suppose  to  be  facts,  render  a  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  impossible  to  me. 


INTERVIEWS.  513 

We  get  atoms  to  support  our  body  from  what  we  eat. 
Now,  if  a  cannibal  should  eat  a  missionary,  and  certain 
atoms  belonging  to  the  missionary  should  be  used  by  the 
cannibal  in  his  body,  and  the  cannibal  should  then  die 
while  the  atoms  of  the  missionary  formed  part  of  his  flesh, 
to  whom  would  these  atoms  belong  in  the  morning  of  the 
resurrection  ? 

Then  again,  science  teaches  us  that  there  is  a  kind  of 
balance  between  animal  and  vegetable  life,  and  that  prob- 
ably all  men  and  all  animals  have  been  trees,  and  all  trees 
have  been  animals ;  so  that  the  probability  is  that  the  atoms 
that  are  now  in  us  have  been,  as  I  said  in  the  first  place, 
in  millions  of  other  people.  Now,  if  this  be  so,  there  can- 
not be  atoms  enough  in  the  morning  of  the  resurrection, 
because,  if  the  atoms  are  given  to  the  first  men,  that 
belonged  to  the  first  men  when  they  died,  there  will  cer- 
tainly be  no  atoms  for  the  last  men. 

Consequently,  I  am  compelled  to  say  that  I  do  not  believe 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  body.* 

TOLSTOY  AND  LITERATURE. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Count  Leo  Tolstoy  ? 

Answer.  I  have  read  Tolstoy.  He  is  a  curious  mixture 
of  simplicity  and  philosophy.  He  seems  to  have  been  car- 
ried away  by  his  conception  of  religion.  He  is  a  non- 
resistant  to  such  a  degree  that  he  asserts  that  he  would  not, 
if  attacked,  use  violence  to  preserve  his  own  life  or  the  life 
of  a  child.     Upon  this  question  he  is  undoubtedly  insane. 

So  he  is  trying  to  live  the  life  of  a  peasant  and  doing 
without  the  comforts  of  life  !  This  is  not  progress.  Civili- 
zation should  not  endeavor  to  bring  about  equality  by 
making  the  rich  poor  or  the  comfortable  miserable.  This 
will  not  add  to  the  pleasures  of  the  rich,  neither  will  it  feed 
the  hungry,  nor  clothe  the  naked. 

The  civilized  wealthy  should  endeavor  to  help  the  needy, 

*  From  notes  found  among  Colonel  Ingersoire  papers. 


514  INTERVIEWS. 

and  help  them  in  a  sensible  way,  not  through  charity,  but 
through  industry;  through  giving  them  opportunities  to 
take  care  of  themselves.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  equality 
that  is  to  be  reached  by  pulling  the  successful  down,  but  I 
do  believe  in  the  civilization  that  tends  to  raise  the  fallen 
and  assists  those  in  need. 

Should  we  all  follow  Tolstoy's  example  and  live  accord- 
ing to  his  philosophy  the  world  would  go  back  to  barbarism; 
art  would  be  lost ;  that  which  elevates  and  refines  would  be 
destroyed ;  the  voice  of  music  would  become  silent,  and 
man  would  be  satisfied  with  a  rag,  a  hut,  a  crust.  We  do 
not  want  the  equality  of  savages. 

No,  in  civilization  there  must  be  differences,  because  there 
is  a  constant  movement  forward.  The  human  race  cannot 
advance  in  line.  There  will  be  pioneers,  there  will  be  the 
great  army,  and  there  will  be  countless  stragglers.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  the  whole  army  to  go  back  to  the  stragglers,  it 
is  better  that  the  army  should  march  forward  toward  the 
pioneers. 

It  may  be  that  the  sale  of  Tolstoy's  works  is  on  the 
increase  in  America,  but  certainly  the  principles  of  Tolstoy 
are  gaining  no  foothold  here.  We  are  not  a  nation  of  non- 
resistants.  We  believe  in  defending  our  homes.  Nothing 
can  exceed  the  insanity  of  non-resistance.  This  doctrine 
leaves  virtue  naked  and  clothes  vice  in  armor;  it  gives 
every  weapon  to  the  wrong  and  takes  every  shield  from  the 
right.  I  believe  that  goodness  has  the  right  of  self-defence. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  vice  should  be  left  naked  and  virtue 
should  have  all  the  weapons.  The  good  should  not  be  a 
flock  of  sheep  at  the  mercy  of  every  wolf.  So,  I  do  not 
accept  Tolstoy's  theory  of  equality  as  a  sensible  solution  of 
the  labor  problem. 

The  hspe  of  this  world  is  that  men  will  become  civilized 
to  that  degree  that  they  csincot  h^  happv  while  thev  know 
that  thousands  of  their  fellow-men  are  miserauiw 


INTERVIEWS.  515 

The  time  will  come  when  the  man  who  dwells  in  a 
palace  will  not  be  happy  if  Want  sits  upon  the  steps  at  his 
door.  No  matter  how  well  he  is  clothed  himself  he  will 
not  enjoy  his  robes  if  he  sees  others  in  rags,  and  the  time 
will  come  when  the  intellect  of  this  world  will  be  directed 
by  the  heart  of  this  world,  and  when  men  of  genius  and 
power  will  do  what  thej^  can  for  the  benefit  of  their  fellow- 
men.  All  this  is  to  come  through  civilization,  through 
experience. 

Men,  after  a  time,  will  find  the  worthlessness  of  great 
wealth ;  they  will  find  it  is  not  splendid  to  excite  envy  in 
others.  So,  too,  they  will  find  that  the  happiness  of  the 
human  race  is  so  interdependent  and  so  interwoven,  so 
intermingled  with  their  own  interests,  that  finally  the 
interest  of  humanity  will  be  the  interest  of  the  individual. 

I  know  that  at  present  the  lives  of  many  millions  are 
practically  without  value,  but  in  my  judgment, the  world 
is  growing  a  little  better  every  day.  On  the  average,  men 
have  more  comforts,  better  clothes,  better  food,  more  books 
and  more  of  the  luxuries  of  life  than  ever  before. 

Question.  It  is  said  that  properly  to  appreciate  Rousseau, 
Voltaire,  Hugo  and  other  French  classics,  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  French  language  is  necessary.  What  is 
your  opinion  ? 

A7iswer.  No;  to  say  that  a  knowledge  of  French  is 
necessary  in  order  to  appreciate  Voltaire  or  Hugo  is  non- 
sensical. For  a  student  anxious  to  study  the  works  of 
these  masters,  to  set  to  work  to  learn  the  language  of  the 
writers  would  be  like  my  building  a  flight  of  stairs  to  go 
down  to  supper.  The  stairs  are  already  there.  Some 
other  person  built  them  for  me  and  others  who  choose  to 
use  them. 

Men  have  spent  their  lives  in  the  study  of  the  French 
•and  English,  and  have  given  us  Voltaire,  Hugo  and  all 
other  works   of  French  classics,  perfect  in  sentiment  and 


5  1 6  INTERVIEWS. 

construction  as  the  originals  are.  Macaulay  was  a  great 
linguist,  but  he  wrote  no  better  than  Shakespeare,  and 
Burns  wrote  perfect  English,  though  virtually  uneducated. 
Good  writing  is  a  matter  of  genius  and  heart ;  reading  is 
application  and  judgment. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  Wilbur's  English  translation  of 
"  Les  Miserables "  is  better  than  Hugo's  original,  as  a 
literary  masterpiece. 

What  a  grand  novel  that  is  !  What  characters,  Jean 
Valjean  and  Javert ! 

Questio7i,  Which  in  your  opinion  is  the  greatest  English 
novel  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  greatest  novel  ever  written  in 
English  is  "A  Tale  of  Two  Cities,"  by  Dickens.  It  is  full  of 
philosophy ;  its  incidents  are  dramatically  grouped.  Sidney 
Carton,  the  hero,  is  a  marvelous  creation  and  a  marvelous 
character.  Lucie  Manette  is  as  delicate  as  the  perfume  of 
wild  violets,  and  cell  105,  North  Tower,  and  scenes  enacted 
there,  almost  touch  the  region  occupied  by  ''Lear."  There, 
too,  Mme.  Defarge  is  the  impersonation  of  the  French 
Revolution,  and  the  nobleman  of  the  chateau  with  his 
fine  features  changed  to  stone,  and  the  messenger  who  sat 
at  Tellson's  Bank  gnawing  the  rust  from  his  nails; 
all  these  are  the  creations  of  genius,  and  these  children  of 
fiction  will  live  as  long  as  Imagination  spreads  her  many 
colored  wings  in  the  mind  of  man. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Pope  ? 
Answer.  Pope!  Alexander  Pope,  that  word-carpenter, 
a  mechanical  poet,  or  stay — rather  a  "  digital  poet ; "  that  fits 
him  best — one  of  those  fellows  who  counts  his  fingers  to 
see  that  his  verse  is  in  perfect  rhythm.  His  "  Essay  on 
Man "  strikes  me  as  being  particularly  defective.  Foi 
instance : 

"All  discord,  harmony  not  understood, 
All  partial  evil,  universal  good," 


INTERVIEWS.  517 

from  the  first  epistle  of  his  "Essay  on  Man."  An5^tliing 
that  is  evil  cannot  by  any  means  be  good,  and  anything 
partial  cannot  be  universal. 

We  see  in  libraries  ponderous  tomes  labelled  "  Burke's 
Speeches."  No  person  ever  seems  to  read  them,  but  he  is 
now  regarded  as  being  in  his  day  a  great  speaker,  because 
now  no  one  has  pluck  enough  to  read  his  speeches.  Why, 
for  thirty  years  Burke  was  known  in  Parliament  as  the 
**  Dinner   Bell " — whenever   he   rose   to   speak,  everybody 

went  to  dinner. —  T/ig  Evening  ExpresSyBviSailo^'^Qw  York,  October  6, 1892. 

WOMAN  IN  POLITICS. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  influence  of  women 
in  politics  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  influence  of  women  is  always  good 
in  politics,  as  in  everything  else.  I  think  it  the  duty  of 
every  woman  to  ascertain  what  she  can  in  regard  to  her 
country,  including  its  history,  laws  and  customs.  Woman 
above  all  others  is  a  teacher.  She,  above  all  others,  deter- 
mines the  character  of  children ;  that  is  to  say,  of  men  and 
women. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  danger  of  women  becoming  too 
intellectual  or  knowing  too  much.  Neither  is  there  any 
danger  of  men  knowing  too  much.  At  least,  I  know  of  no 
men  who  are  in  immediate  peril  from  that  source.  I  am 
a  firm  believer  in  the  equal  rights  of  human  beings,  and  no 
matter  what  I  think  as  to  what  woman  should  or  should 
not  do,  she  has  the  same  right  to  decide  for  herself  that  I 
have  to  decide  for  myself.  If  women  wish  to  vote,  if  they 
wish  to  take  part  in  political  matters,  if  they  wish  to  run  for 
ofl&ce,  I  shall  do  nothing  to  interfere  with  their  rights. 
I  most  cheerfully  admit  that  my  political  rights  are  only 
equal  to  theirs. 

There  was  a  time  when  physical  force  or  brute  strength 
gave  pre-eminence.     The  savage  chief  occupied  his  posi- 


5l8  INTERVIEWS. 

tion  by  virtue  of  his  muscle,  of  his  courage,  on  account  oi 
the  facility  with  which  he  wielded  a  club.  As  long  as 
nations  depend  simply  upon  brute  force,  the  man,  in  time 
of  war,  is,  of  necessity,  of  more  importance  to  the  nation 
than  woman,  and  as  the  dispute  is  to  be  settled  by  strength, 
by  force,  those  who  have  the  strength  and  force  naturally 
settle  it.  As  the  world  becomes  civilized,  intelligence 
slowly  takes  the  place  of  force,  conscience  restrains  muscle, 
reason  enters  the  arena,  and  the  gladiator  retires. 

A  little  while  ago  the  literature  of  the  world  was  pro- 
duced by  men,  and  men  were  not  only  the  writers,  but  the 
readers.  At  that  time  the  novels  were  coarse  and  vulgar. 
Now  the  readers  of  fiction  are  women,  and  they  demand 
that  which  they  can  read,  and  the  result  is  that  women 
have  become  great  writers.  The  women  have  changed  our 
literature,  and  the  change  has  been  good. 

In  every  field  where  woman  has  become  a  competitor 
of  man  she  has  either  become,  or  given  evidence  that  she  is 
to  become,  his  equal.  My  own  opinion  is  that  woman  is 
naturally  the  equal  of  man  and  that  in  time,  that  is  to  say, 
when  she  has  had  the  opportunity  and  the  training,  she ' 
will  produce  in  the  world  of  art  as  great  pictures,  as  great 
statues,  and  in  the  world  of  literature  as  great  books, 
dramas  and  poems  as  man  has  produced  or  will  produce. 

There  is  nothing  very  hard  to  understand  in  the  politics 
of  a  country.  The  general  principles  are  for  the  most  part 
simple.  It  is  only  in  the  application  that  the  complexity 
arises,  and  woman,  I  think,  by  nature,  is  as  well  fitted  to 
understand  these  things  as  man.  In  short,  I  have  no  prej- 
udice on  this  subject.  At  first,  women  will  be  more  con- 
servative than  men  ;  and  this  is  natural.  Women  have, 
through  many  generations,  acquired  the  habit  of  submission, 
of  acquiescence.  They  have  practiced  what  may  be  called 
the  slave  virtues — obedience,  humility — so  that  some  time 
"Will  be  required  for  them  to  become  accustomed  to  the  new 


INTERVIEWS.  519 

order  of  things,  to  the  exercise  of  greater  freedom,  acting 
in  accordance  with  perceived  obligation,  independently  of 
authority. 

So  I  say  equal  rights,  equal  education,  equal  advantages. 
I  hope  that  woman  will  not  continue  to  be  the  serf  of  su- 
perstition ;  that  she  will  not  be  the  support  of  the  church 
and  priest ;  that  she  will  not  stand  for  the  conservation  of 
superstition,  but  that  in  the  east  of  her  mind  the  sun  of 
progress  will  rise. 

Question.  In  your  lecture  on  Voltaire  you  made  a  remark 
about  the  government  of  ministers,  and  you  stated  that  if 
the  ministers  of  the  city  of  New  York  had  the  power  to 
make  the  laws  most  people  would  prefer  to  live  in  a  well 
regulated  penitentiary.     What  do  you  mean  by  this  ? 

Answer.  Well,  as  a  rule,  ministers  are  quite  severe.  They 
have  little  patience  with  human  failures.  They  are  taught, 
and  they  believe  and  they  teach,  that  man  is  absolutely 
master  of  his  own  fate.  Besides,  they  are  believers  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  laws  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament are  exceedingly  severe.  Nearly  every  offence  was 
punished  by  death.  Every  offence  was  regarded  as  treason 
against  Jehovah. 

In  the  Pentateuch  there  is  no  pity.  If  a  man  committed 
some  offence  justice  was  not  satisfied  with  his  punishment, 
but  proceeded  to  destroy  his  wife  and  children.  Jehovah 
seemed  to  think  that  crime  was  in  the  blood ;  that  it  was 
not  sufficient  to  kill  the  criminal,  but  to  prevent  future 
crimes  you  should  kill  his  wife  and  babes.  The  reading 
of  the  Old  Testament  is  calculated  to  harden  the  heart,  to 
drive  the  angel  of  pity  from  the  breast  and  to  make  man 
0.  religious  savage.  The  clergy,  as  a  rule,  do  not  take 
a  broad  and  liberal  view  of  things.  They  judge  every 
offence  by  what  they  consider  would  be  the  result  if  every- 
body committed  the  same  offence.  They  do  not  under- 
stand that  even   vice   creates   obstructions   for   itself,  and 


e20  INTERVIEWS. 

that  there  is  something  in  the  nature  of  crime  the  tendency 
of  which  is  to  defeat  crime,  and  I  might  add  in  this  place 
that  the  same  seems  to  be  true  of  excessive  virtue.  As  a 
rule,  the  clergy  clamor  with  great  zeal  for  the  execution  of 
cruel  laws. 

Let  me  give  an  instance  in  point :  In  the  time  of  George 
III.,  in  England,  there  were  two  hundred  and  twenty-three 
oiiences  punishable  with  death.  From  time  to  time  this 
cruel  code  was  changed  by  Act  of  Parliament,  yet  no 
bishop  sitting  in  the  House  of  Lords  ever  voted  in  favor 
of  any  one  of  these  measures.  The  bishops  always  voted 
for  death,  for  blood,  against  mercy  and  against  the  repeal 
of  capital  punishment.  During  all  these  years  there  were 
some  twenty  thousand  or  more  of  the  established  clergy, 
and  yet,  according  to  John  Bright,  no  voice  was  ever 
raised  in  any  Episcopal  pulpit  against  the  infamous  crim- 
inal code. 

Another  thing :  The  orthodox  clergy  teach  that  man  is 
totally  depraved  ;  that  his  inclination  is  evil ;  that  his 
tendency  is  toward  the  Devil.  Starting  from  this  as  a 
foundation,  of  course  every  clergyman  believes  every  bad 
thing  said  of  everybody  else.  So,  when  some  man  is 
charged  with  a  crime,  the  clergyman  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  fact  that  the  man  is  totally  depraved,  takes  it 
for  granted  that  he  must  be  guilty.  I  am  not  saying  this 
for  the  purpose  of  exciting  prejudice  against  the  clergy. 
I  am  simply  showing  what  is  the  natural  result  of  a  cer- 
tain creed,  of  a  belief  in  universal  depravity,  of  a  belief  in 
the  power  and  influence  of  a  personal  Devil.  If  the  clergy 
could  have  their  own  way  they  would  endeavor  to  reform 
the  world  by  law.  They  would  re-enact  the  old  statutes 
of  the  Puritans.  Joy  would  be  a  crime.  Love  would  be 
an  offence.  Every  man  with  a  smile  on  his  face  would  be 
suspected,  and  a  dimple  in  the  cheek  would  be  a  demonstra- 
tion of  depravity. 


INTERVIEWS.  521 

In  the  trial  of  a  cause  it  is  natural  for  a  clergyman  to 
start  with  the  proposition,  "  The  defendant  is  guilty ;  "  and 
then  he  says  to  himself,  "  Let  him  prove  himself  innocent." 
The  man  who  has  not  been  poisoned  with  the  creed  starts 
out  with  the  proposition,  "The  defendant  is  innocent ;  let 
the  State  prove  that  he  is  guilty."  Consequently,  I  say 
that  if  I  were  defending  a  man  whom  I  knew  to  be  inno- 
cent, I  would  not  have  a  clergyman  on  the  jury  if  I  could 

help  it. — New  York  Advertiser,  December  24, 1893. 

SPIRITUALISM. 

Question.  Have  you  investigated  Spiritualism,  and  what 
has  been  your  experience  ? 

Answer.  A  few  years  ago  I  paid  some  attention  to  what  is 
called  Spiritualism,  and  was  present  when  quite  mysterious 
things  were  supposed  to  have  happened.  The  most  notable 
seance  that  I  attended  was  given  by  Slade,  at  which  slate- 
writing  was  done.  Two  slates  were  fastened  together,  with 
a  pencil  between  them,  and  on  opening  the  slates  certain 
writing  was  found.  When  the  writing  was  done  it  was 
impossible  to  tell.  So,  I  have  been  present  when  it  was 
claimed  that  certain  dead  people  had  again  clothed  them- 
selves in  flesh  and  were  again  talking  in  the  old  way.  So,  I 
have  attended  seances  where  information  was  given  by  raps. 
In  one  instance,  I  think,  George  Washington  claimed  to  be 
present.  On  the  same  evening  Shakespeare  put  in  an  ap- 
pearance. It  was  hard  to  recognize  Shakespeare  from  what 
the  spirit  said,  still  I  was  assured  by  the  medium  that  there 
was  no  mistake  as  to  identity. 

Question.  Can  you  offer  any  explanation  of  the  extraor- 
dinary phenomena  such  as  Henry  J.  Newton  has  had  pro- 
duced at  his  own  house  under  his  own  supervision? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  don't  believe  that  anything 
such  as  you  describe  has  ever  happened.  I  do  not  believe 
that  a  medium  ever  passed  into  and  out  of  a  triple-locked 


532  INTERVIEWS. 

iron  cage.  Neither  do  I  believe  that  any  spirits  were  able 
to  throw  shoes  and  wraps  out  of  the  cage ;  neither  do  I  be- 
lieve that  any  apparitions  ever  rose  from  the  floor,  or  that 
anything  you  relate  has  ever  happened.  The  best  explana- 
tion I  can  give  of  these  wonderful  occurrences  is  the  follow- 
ing: A  little  boy  and  girl  were  standing  in  a  doorway  hold- 
ing hands.  A  gentleman  passing,  stopped  for  a  moment 
and  said  to  the  little  girl:  "What  relation  is  the  little  boy 
to  you?"  and  she  replied,  "We  had  the  same  father  and 
we  had  the  same  mother,  but  I  am  not  his  sister  and  he  is 
not  my  brother."  This  at  first  seemed  to  be  quite  a  puzzle, 
but  it  was  exceedingly  plain  when  the  answer  was  known. 
The  little  girl  lied. 

Qicesfion.  Have  you  had  any  experience  with  spirit  pho- 
tography, spirit  physicians  or  spirit  lawyers  ? 

Amwer,  I  was  shown  at  one  time  several  pictures  said  to 
be  the  photographs  of  living  persons  surrounded  by  the 
photographs  of  spirits.  I  examined  them  very  closely,  and 
I  found  evidence  in  the  photographs  themselves  that  they 
were  spurious.  I  took  it  for  granted  that  light  is  the  same 
everywhere,  and  that  it  obeys  the  angle  of  incidence  in  all 
worlds  and  at  all  times.  In  looking  at  the  spirit  photo- 
graphs I  found,  for  instance,  that  in  the  photograph  of  the 
living  person  the  shadows  fell  to  the  right,  and  that  in  the 
photographs  of  the  ghosts,  or  spirits,  supposed  to  have  been 
surrounding  the  living  person  at  the  time  the  picture  was 
taken,  the  shadows  did  not  fall  in  the  same  direction,  some- 
times in  the  opposite  direction,  never  at  the  same  angle  even 
when  the  general  direction  was  the  same.  This  demon- 
strated that  the  photographs  of  the  spirits  and  of  the  living 
persons  were  not  taken  at  the  same  time.  So  much  for 
photographs. 

I  have  had  no  experience  with  spirit  physicians.  I  was 
once  told  by  a  lawyer  who  came  to  employ  me  in  a  will 
case,  that  a  certain  person  had  made  a  will  giving  a  large 


I 


INTERVIEWS.  523 

amount  of  money  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  the  gospel  of 
Spiritualism,  but  that  the  will  had  been  lost  and  that  an 
effort  was  then  being  made  to  find  it,  and  they  wished  to 
take  certain  action  pending  the  search,  and  wanted  my  assist- 
ance. I  said  to  him :  "  If  Spiritualism  be  true,  why  not  ask 
the  man  who  made  the  will  what  it  was  and  also  what  has 
become  of  it.  If  you  can  find  that  out  from  the  departed, 
I  will  gladly  take  a  retainer  in  the  case;  otherwise,!  must 
decline."     I  have  had  no  other  experience  with  the  lawyers. 

Question.  If  you  were  to  witness  phenomena  that  seemed 
inexplicable  by  natural  laws,  would  you  be  inclined  to  favor 
Spiritualism  ? 

Answer.  I  would  not.  If  I  should  witness  phenomena 
that  I  could  not  explain,  I  would  leave  the  phenomena  un- 
explained. I  would  not  explain  them  because  I  did  not 
understand  them,  and  say  they  were  or  are  produced  by 
spirits.  That  is  no  explanation,  and,  after  admitting  that 
we  do  not  know  and  that  we  cannot  explain,  why  should 
we  proceed  to  explain  ?  I  have  seen  Mr.  Kellar  do  things 
for  which  I  can  not  account.  Why  should  I  say  that  he 
has  the  assistance  of  spirits  ?  All  I  have  a  right  to  say  is 
that  I  know  nothing  about  how  he  does  them.  So  I  am  com- 
pelled to  say  with  regard  to  many  spiritualistic  feats,  that  I 
am  ignorant  of  the  ways  and  means.  At  the  same  time,  I 
do  not  believe  that  there  is  anything  supernatural  in  the 
universe. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  Spiritualism  and 
Spiritualists  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  Spiritualism  of  the  present  day  is 
certainly  in  advance  of  the  Spiritualism  of  several  cen- 
turies ago.  Persons  who  now  deny  Spiritualism  and  hold 
it  in  utter  contempt  insist  that  some  eighteen  or  nineteen 
centuries  ago  it  had  possession  of  the  world  ;  that  miracles 
were  of  daily  occurrence ;  that  demons,  devils,  fiends,  took 
possession  of  human  beings,  lived  in  their  bodies,  domina- 


524  INTERVIEWS. 

ted  their  minds.  They  believe,  too,  that  devils  took  pos- 
session of  the  bodies  of  animals.  They  also  insist  that  a 
wish  could  multiply  fish.  And,  curiously  enough,  the 
Spiritualists  of  our  time  have  but  little  confidence  in  the 
phenomena  of  eighteen  hundred  years  ago ;  and,  curiously 
enough,  those  who  believe  in  the  Spiritualism  of  eighteen 
hundred  j^ears  ago  deny  the  Spiritualism  of  to-day.  I 
think  the  Spiritualists  of  to-day  have  far  more  evidence  of 
their  phenomena  than  those  who  believe  in  the  wonderful 
things  of  eighteen  centuries  ago.  The  Spiritualists  of  to- 
day have  living  witnesses,  which  is  something.  I  know  a 
great  many  Spiritualists  that  are  exceedingly  good  people, 
and  are  doing  what  they  can  to  make  the  world  better. 
But  I  think  they  are  mistaken. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  in  spirit  entities,  whether  man- 
ifestible  or  not  ? 

Answer.  I  believe  there  is  such  a  thing  as  matter.  I 
believe  there  is  a  something  called  force.  The  difference 
between  force  and  matter  I  do  not  know.  So  there  is  a 
something  called  consciousness.  Whether  we  call  con- 
sciousness an  entity  or  not  makes  no  difference  as  to  what 
it  really  is.  There  is  something  that  hears,  sees  and  feels,  a 
something  that  takes  cognizance  of  what  happens  in  what  we 
call  the  outward  world.  No  matter  whether  we  call  this 
something  matter  or  spirit,  it  is  something  that  we  do  not 
know,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  all  about.  We  cannot  understand 
what  matter  is.  It  defies  us,  and  defies  definitions.  So, 
with  what  we  call  spirit,  we  are  in  utter  ignorance  of  what 
it  is.  We  have  some  little  conception  of  what  we  mean  by 
it,  and  of  what  others  mean,  but  as  to  what  it  really  is  no 
one  knows.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  we  call  our- 
selves Materialists  or  Spiritualists,  we  believe  in  all  there 
is,  no  matter  what  you  call  it.  If  we  call  it  all  matter, 
then  we  believe  that  matter  can  think  and  hope  and  dream. 
If  we  call  it  all  spirit,  then  we  believe  that  spirit  has  force, 


INTERVIEWS.  525 

that  it  offers  a  resistance ;  in  other  words,  that  it  is,  in  one 
of  its  aspects,  what  we  call  matter.  I  cannot  believe  that 
everything  can  be  accounted  for  by  motion  or  by  what  we 
call  force,  because  there  is  something  that  recognizes 
force.  There  is  something  that  compares,  that  thinks,  that 
remembers;  there  is  something  that  suffers  and  enjoys; 
there  is  something  that  each  one  calls  himself  or  herself, 
that  is  inexplicable  to  himself  or  herself,  and  it  makes  no 
difference  whether  we  call  this  something  mind  or  soul, 
effect  or  entity,  it  still  eludes  us,  and  all  the  words  we 
have  coined  for  the  purpose  of  expressing  our  knowledge 
of  this  something,  after  all,  express  only  our  desire  to 
know,  and  our  efforts  to  ascertain.  It  may  be  that  if  we 
would  ask  some  minister,  some  one  who  has  studied 
theology,  he  would  give  us  a  perfect  definition.  The 
scientists  know  nothing  about  it,  and  I  know  of  no  one 

who  does,  unless  it  be  a  theologian. — The  Globe-Democrat,  St. 
Louis,  Mo.,  1893, 

PLAYS  AND  PLAYERS. 

Question,  What  place  does  the  theatre  hold  among  the 
arts? 

Answer.  Nearly  all  the  arts  unite  in  the  theatre,  and  it  is 
the  result  of  the  best,  the  highest,  the  most  artistic,that  man 
can  do. 

In  the  first  place,  there  must  be  the  dramatic  poet.  Dra- 
matic poetry  is  the  subtlest,  profoundest,  the  most  intellect- 
ual, the  most  passionate  and  artistic  of  all.  Then  the  stage 
must  be  prepared,  and  there  is  work  for  the  architect,  the 
painter  and  sculptor.  Then  the  actors  appear,  and  they 
must  be  gifted  with  imagination,  with  a  high  order  of  in- 
telligence; they  must  have  sympathies  quick  and  deep, 
natures  capable  of  the  greatest  emotion,  dominated  by 
passion.  They  must  have  impressive  presence,  and  all  that 
is  manly  should  meet  and  unite  in  the  actor ;  all  that  is 


526  INTERVIEWS. 

womanly,  tender,  intense  and  admirable  should  be  lavishly- 
bestowed  on  the  actress.  In  addition  to  all  this,  actors 
should  have  the  art  of  being  natural. 

Let  me  explain  what  I  mean  by  being  natural.  When  I 
say  that  an  actor  is  natural,  I  mean  that  he  appears  to  act  in 
accordance  with  his  ideal,  in  accordance  with  his  nature,  and 
that  he  is  not  an  imitator  or  a  copyist — that  he  is  not  made 
up  of  shreds  and  patches  taken  from  others,  but  that  all  he 
does  flows  from  interior  fountains  and  is  consistent  with  his 
own  nature,  all  having  in  a  marked  degree  the  highest 
characteristics  of  the  man.  That  is  what  I  mean  by  being 
natural. 

The  great  actor  must  be  acquainted  with  the  heart,  must 
know  the  motives,  ends,  objects  and  desires  that  control  the 
thoughts  and  acts  of  men.  He  must  be  familiar  with  many 
people,  including  the  lowest  and  the  highest,  so  that  he  may 
give  to  others,  clothed  with  flesh  and  blood,  the  characters 
born  of  the  poet's  brain.  The  great  actor  must  know 
the  relations  that  exist  between  passion  and  voice,  gesture 
and  emphasis,  expression  and  pose.  He  must  speak  not 
only  with  his  voice,  but  with  his  body.  The  great  actor 
must  be  master  of  many  arts. 

Then  comes  the  musician.  The  theatre  has  always  been 
the  home  of  music,  and  this  music  must  be  appropriate  ; 
must,  or  should,  express  or  supplement  what  happens  on 
the  stage ;  should  furnish  rest  and  balm  for  minds  over- 
wrought with  tragic  deeds.  To  produce  a  great  play,  and 
put  it  worthily  upon  the  stage,  involves  most  arts,  many 
sciences  and  nearly  all  that  is  artistic,  poetic  and  dramatic 
in  the  mind  of  man. 

Question.  Should  the  drama  teach  lessons  and  discuss 
social  problems,  or  should  it  give  simply  intellectual  pleasure 
and  furnish  amusement? 

Answer,  Every  great  play  teaches  many  lessons  and 
touches  nearly  all  social  problems.     But  the  great  play  does 


INTERVIEWS.  527 

this  by  indirection.  Every  beautiful  tbougbt  is  a  teacher ; 
every  noble  line  speaks  to  the  brain  and  heart.  Beauty 
proportion,  melody,  suggest  moral  beauty,  proportion  in 
conduct  and  melody  in  life.  In  a  great  play  the  relations  of 
the  various  characters,  their  objects,  the  means  adopted  for 
their  accomplishment,  must  suggest,  and  in  a  certain  sense 
solve  or  throw  light  on  many  social  problems,  so  that  the 
drama  teaches  lessons,  discusses  social  problems  and  gives 
intellectual  pleasure. 

The  stage  should  not  be  dogmatic  ;  neither  should  its  ob- 
ject be  directly  to  enforce  a  moral.  The  great  thing  for  the 
drama  to  do,  and  the  great  thing  it  has  done,  and  is  doing, 
is  to  cultivate  the  imagination.  This  is  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. The  civilization  of  man  depends  upon  the 
development,  not  only  of  the  intellect,  but  of  the  imagina- 
tion. Most  crimes  of  violence  are  committed  by  people  who 
are  destitute  of  imagination.  People  without  imagination 
made  most  of  the  cruel  and  infamous  creeds.  They  were 
the  persecutors  and  destroyers  of  their  fellow-men.  By 
cultivating  the  imagination,  the  stage  becomes  one  of  the 
greatest  teachers.  It  produces  the  climate  in  which  the  better 
feelings  grow  ;  it  is  the  home  of  the  ideal.  All  beautiful 
things  tend  to  the  civilization  of  man.  The  great  statues 
plead  for  proportion  in  life,  the  great  symphonies  suggest 
the  melody  of  conduct,  and  the  great  plays  cultivate  the 
heart  and  brain. 

QiLestion.  What  do  you  think  of  the  French  drama  as 
compared  with  the  English,  morally  and  artistically  con- 
sidered ? 

Answer.  The  modern  French  drama,  so  far  as  I  am  ac- 
quainted with  it,  is  a  disease.  It  deals  with  the  abnormal. 
It  is  fashioned  after  Balzac.  It  exhibits  moral  tumors, 
mental  cancers  and  all  kinds  of  abnormal  fungi, — excres- 
cences. Everything  is  stood  on  its  head  ;  virtue  lives  in 
the  brothel ;  the  good  are  the  really  bad  and  the  worst  are. 


528  INTERVIEWS. 

after  all,  the  best.  It  portrays  the  exceptional,  and  mistakes 
the  scum-covered  oayou  for  the  great  river.  The  French 
dramatists  seem  to  think  that  the  ceremony  of  marriage 
sows  the  seed  of  vice.  They  are  always  conveying  the  idea 
that  the  virtuous  are  uninteresting,  rather  stupid,  without 
sense  and  spirit  enough  to  take  advantage  of  their  privileges. 
Between  the  greatest  French  plays  and  the  greatest  English 
plays  of  course  there  is  no  comparison.  If  a  Frenchman 
had  written  the  plays  of  Shakespeare,  Desdemona  would  have 
been  guilty,  Isabella  would  have  ransomed  her  brother  at 
the  Duke's  price,  Juliet  would  have  married  the  County  Paris, 
run  away  from  him,  and  joined  Romeo  in  Mantua,  and 
Miranda  would  have  listened  coquettishly  to  the  words  of 
Caliban.  The  French  are  exceedingly  artistic.  They  un- 
derstand stage  effects,  love  the  climax,  delight  in  surprises, 
especially  in  the  improbable;  but  their  dramatists  lack 
sympathy  and  breadth  of  treatment.  They  are  provincial. 
With  them  France  is  the  world.  They  know  little  of  other 
countries.     Their  plays  do  not  touch  the  universal. 

Question.  What  are  your  feelings  in  reference  to  idealism 
on  the  stage  ? 

Answer.  The  stage  ought  to  be  the  home  of  the  ideal;  in 
a  word,  the  imagination  should  have  full  sway.  The  great 
dramatist  is  a  creator ;  he  is  the  sovereign,  and  governs  his 
own  world.  The  realist  is  only  a  copyist.  He  does  not 
need  genius.  All  he  wants  is  industry  and  the  trick  of 
imitation.  On  the  stage,  the  real  should  be  idealized,  the 
ordinary  should  be  transfigured ;  that  is,  the  deeper  mean- 
ings of  things  should  be  given.  As  we  make  music  of 
common  air,  and  statues  of  stone,  so  the  great  dramatist 
should  make  life  burst  into  blossom  on  the  stage.  A  lot  of 
words,  facts,  odds  and  ends  divided  into  acts  and  scenes  do 
not  make  a  play.  These  things  are  like  old  pieces  of  broken 
iron  that  need  the  heat  of  the  furnace  so  that  they  may  be 
moulded   into   shape.     Genius  is  that   furnace,  and   in   its 


INTERVIEWS.  529 

heat  and  glow  and  flame  these  pieces,  these  fragments,  be- 
come molten  and  are  cast  into  noble  and  heroic  forms. 
Realism  degrades  and  impoverishes  the  stage. 

Question,  What  attributes  should  an  actor  have  to  be 
really  great  ? 

Answer.  Intelligence,  imagination,  presence ;  a  mobile  and 
impressive  face ;  a  body  that  lends  itself  to  every  mood  in 
appropriate  pose,  one  that  is  oak  or  willow,  at  will ;  self- 
possession  ;  absolute  ease ;  a  voice  capable  of  giving  every 
shade  of  meaning  and  feeling,  an  intuitive  knowledge  or 
perception  of  proportion,  and  above  all,  the  actor  should  be 
so  sincere  that  he  loses  himself  in  the  character  he  portrays. 
Such  an  actor  will  grow  intellectually  and  morally.  The 
great  actor  should  strive  to  satisfy  himself — to  reach  his 
own  ideal. 

Question.  Do  you  enjoy  Shakespeare  more  in  the  library 
than  Shakespeare  interpreted  by  actors  now  on  the  boards  ? 

A7iswer\  I  enjoy  Shakespeare  everywhere.  I  think  it 
would  give  me  pleasure  to  hear  those  wonderful  lines 
spoken  even  by  phonographs.  But  Shakespeare  is  greatest 
and  best  when  grandly  put  upon  the  stage.  There  you  know 
the  connection,  the  relation,  the  circumstances,  and  these 
bring  out  the  appropriateness  and  the  perfect  meaning  of 
the  text.  Nobody  in  this  country  now  thinks  of  Hamlet 
without  thinking  of  Booth.  For  this  generation  at  least. 
Booth  is  Hamlet.  It  is  impossible  for  me  to  read  the  words 
of  Sir  Toby  without  seeing  the  face  of  W.  F.  Owen.  Brutus 
is  Davenport,  Cassius  is  Lawrence  Barrett,  and  Lear  will  be 
associated  always  in  my  mind  with  Edwin  Forrest.  Lady 
Macbeth  is  to  me  Adelaide  Ristori,  the  greatest  actress  I 
ever  saw.  If  I  understood  music  perfectly,  I  would  much 
rather  hear  Seidl's  orchestra  play  ''Tristan,"  or  hear 
Remenyi's  matchless  rendition  of  Schubert's  "Ava  Maria," 
than  to  read  the  notes. 

Most  people  love  the  theatre.     Everj'thing  about  it  from 


530  INTERVIEWS. 

Stage  to  gallery  attracts  and  fascinates.  The  m3^sterious 
realm,  behind  the  scenes,  from  which  emerge  kings  and 
clown^  villains  and  fools,  heroes  and  lovers,  and  in  which 
they  disappear,  is  still  a  fairyland.  As  long  as  man  is  man 
he  will  enjoy  the  love  and  laughter,  the  tears  and  rapture  of 
the  mimic  world. 

Question.  Is  it  because  we  lack  men  of  genius  or  because 
our  life  is  too  material  that  no  truly  great  American  plays 
have  been  written  ? 

Answer.  No  great  play  has  been  written  since  Shakes- 
peare ;  that  is,  no  play  has  been  written  equal  to  his.  But 
there  is  the  same  reason  for  that  in  all  other  countries,  in- 
cluding England,  that  there  is  in  this  country,  and  that  rea- 
son is  that  Shakespeare  has  had  no  equal. 

America  has  not  failed  because  life  in  the  Republic  is 
too  material.  Germany  and  France,  and,  in  fact,  all  other 
nations,  have  failed  in  the  same  way.  In  the  sense  in 
which  I  am  speaking,  Germany  has  produced  no  great 
play. 

In  the  dramatic  world  Shakespeare  stands  alone.  Com- 
pared with  him,  even  the  classic  is  childish. 

There  is  plenty  of  material  for  plays.  The  Republic  has 
lived  a  great  play — a  great  poem — a  most  marvelous 
drama.  Here,  on  our  soil,  have  happened  some  of  the 
greatest  events  in   the  history  of  the  world. 

All  human  passions  have  been  and  are  in  full  play  here, 
and  here  as  elsewhere,  can  be  found  the  tragic,  the  comic, 
the  beautiful,  the  poetic,  the  tears,  the  smiles,  the  lamenta- 
tions and  the  laughter  that  are  the  necessary  warp  and  woof 
with  which  to  weave  the  living  tapestries  that  we  call 
plays. 

We  are  beginning.  We  have  found  that  American  plays 
must  be  American  in  spirit.  We  are  tired  of  imitations  and 
adaptations.  We  want  pla^^s  worthy  of  the  great  Republic. 
Some  good  work  has  recently  been  done,  giving  great  hope 


INTERVIEWS.  530' 

for  the  future.  Of  course  the  realistic  comes  first ;  afterward 
the  ideal.  But  here  in  America,  as  in  all  other  lands,  love 
is  the  eternal  passion  that  will  forever  hold  the  stage. 
Around  that  everything  else  will  move.  It  is  the  sun.  All 
other  passions  are  secondary.  Their  orbits  are  determined 
by  the  central  force  from  which  they  receive  their  light 
and  meaning. 

Love,  however,  must  be  kept  pure. 

The  great  dramatist  is,  of  necessity,  a  believer  in  virtue,  in 
honesty,  in  courage  and  in  the  nobility  of  human  nature. 
He  must  know  that  there  are  men  and  women  that  even  a 
God  could  not  corrupt ;  such  knowledge,  such  feeling,  is  the 
foundation,  and  the  only  foundation,  that  can  support  the 
splendid  structure,  the  many  pillared  stories  and  the  swell- 
ing dome  of  the  great  drama. —  The  New  York  Dramatic  Mirror,  De- 
cember  26, 1891. 

WOMAN. 

It  takes  a  hundred  men  to  make  an  encampment,  but  one 
woman  can  make  a  home.  I  not  only  admire  woman  as 
the  most  beautiful  object  ever  created,  but  I  reverence  her 
as  the  redeeming  glory  of  humanity,  the  sanctuary  of  all 
the  virtues,  the  pledge  of  all  perfect  qualities  of  heart  and 
head.  It  is  not  just  or  right  to  lay  the  sins  of  men  at  the 
feet  of  women.  It  is  because  women  are  so  much  better 
than  men  that  their  faults  are  considered  greater. 

The  one  thing  in  this  world  that  is  constant,  the  one  peak 
that  rises  above  all  clouds,  the  one  window  in  which  the 
light  forever  burns,  the  one  star  that  darkness  cannot 
quench,  is  woman's  love.  It  rises  to  the  greatest  heights,  it 
sinks  to  the  lowest  depths,  it  forgives  the  most  cruel  in- 
juries. It  is  perennial  of  life,  and  grows  in  every  climate. 
Neither  coldness  nor  neglect,  harshness  nor  cruelty,  can  ex- 
tinguish it.  A  woman's  love  is  the  perfume  of  the 
heart. 


532 


INTERVIEWS. 


celebrated  witli  as  much  enthusiasm  as  ever  all  through  the 
West,  and  the  feeling  of  rejoicing  over  the  anniversary  of 
the  day  is  as  great  and  strong  as  ever.  The  people  are  tired 
of  celebrating  with  a  great  noise  and  I  am  glad  of  it. 

Question,  What  do  you  think  of  the  Congress  of  Religions, 
to  be  held  in  Chicago  during  the  World's  Fair. 

Answer.  It  will  do  good,  if  they  will  honestly  compare 
their  creeds  so  that  each  one  can  see  j  ust  how  foolish  all  the 
rest  are.  They  ought  to  compare  their  sacred  books,  and 
their  miracles,  and  their  mythologies,  and  if  they  do  so  they 
will  probably  see  that  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  them  all. 
Let  them  have  a  Congress,  by  all  means,  and  let  them  show 
how  priests  live  on  the  labor  of  those  they  deceive.  It  will 
do  good. 

Question.  Do  you  think  Cleveland's  course  as  to  appoint- 
ments has  strengthened  him  with  the  people? 

Answer.  Patronage  is  a  two-edged  sword  with  very 
little  handle.  It  takes  an  exceedingly  clever  President  to 
strengthen  himself  by  its  exercise.  When  a  man  is  running 
for  President  the  twenty  men  in  every  town  who  expect  to 
be  made  postmaster  are  for  him  heart  and  soul.  Only  one 
can  get  the  ofiBce,  and  the  nineteen  who  do  not,  feel  outraged, 
and  the  lucky  one  is  mad  on  account  of  the  delay.  So 
twenty  friends  are  lost  with  one  place. 

Question.  Is  the  Age  of  Chivalry  dead  ? 

Answer.  The  "  Age  of  Chivalry  "  never  existed  except  in 
the  imagination.  The  Age  of  Chivalry  was  the  age  of 
cowardice  and  crime. 

There  is  more  chivalry  to-day  than  ever.  Men  have  a 
better,  a  clearer  idea  of  justice,  and  pay  their  debts  better, 
and  treat  their  wives  and  children  better  than  ever  before. 
The  higher  and  better  qualities  of  the  soul  have  more  to 
do  with  the  average  life.  To-day  men  have  greater  admira- 
tion and  respect  for  women,  greater  regard  for  the  social  and 
domestic  obligations  than  their  fathers  had. 


INTERVIEWS.  533 

Qxiestion.  What  led  you  to  begin  lecturing  on  your  present 
subjects,  and  what  was  your  first  lecture? 

Answer.  My  first  lecture  was  entitled  "  Progress."  I  be- 
gan lecturing  because  I  thought  the  creeds  of  the  orthodox 
church  false  and  horrible,  and  because  I  thought  the  Bible 
cruel  and  absurd,  and  because  I  like  intellectual  liberty. — 

New  York,  May  5,  1893. 

SUNDAY  A  DAY  OF  PLEASURE. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  religious  spirit  that 
seeks  to  regulate  by  legislation  the  manner  in  which  the 
people  of  this  country  shall  spend  their  Sundays  ? 

Answer.  The  church  is  not  willing  to  stand  alone,  not 
willing  to  base  its  influence  on  reason  and  on  the  character 
of  its  members.  It  seeks  the  aid  of  the  State.  The  cross 
is  in  partnership  with  the  sword.  People  should  spend 
Sundays  as  they  do  other  days ;  that  is  to  say,  as  they 
please.  No  one  has  the  right  to  do  anything  on  Monday 
that  interferes  with  the  rights  of  his  neighbors,  and  every- 
one has  the  right  to  do  anything  he  pleases  on  Sunday 
that  does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  his  neighbors. 
Sunday  is  a  day  of  rest,  not  of  religion.  We  are  under 
obligation  to  do  right  on  all  days. 

Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  the  idea  that  any  par- 
ticular space  of  time  is  sacred.  Everything  in  nature  goes 
on  the  same  on  Sunday  as  on  other  days,  and  if  beyond 
nature  there  be  a  God,  then  God  works  on  Sunday  as  he 
does  on  all  other  days.  There  is  no  rest  in  nature.  There 
is  perpetual  activity  in  every  possible  direction.  The  old 
idea  that  God  made  the  world  and  then  rested,  is  idiotic. 
There  were  two  reasons  given  to  the  Hebrews  for  keeping 
the  Sabbath — one  because  Jehovah  rested  on  that  day,  the 
other  because  the  Hebrews  were  brought  out  of  Egypt. 
The  first  reason,  we  know,  is  false,  and  the  second  reason 
is  good  only  for  the  Hebrews.     According  to  the  Bible, 


534 


INTERVIEWS. 


Sunday,  or  rather  the  Sabbath,  was  not  for  the  world,  but 
for  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Hebrews  alone.  Our  Sunday  is 
pagan  and  is  the  day  of  the  sun,  as  Monday  is  the  day  of 
the  moon.  All  our  day  names  are  pagan.  I  am  opposed 
to  all  Sunday  legislation. 

Question.  Why  should  Sunday  be  observed  otherwise 
than  as  a  day  of  recreation  ? 

Answer.  Sunday  is  a  day  of  recreation,  or  should  be;  a 
day  for  the  laboring  man  to  rest,  a  day  to  visit  museums 
and  libraries,  a  day  to  look  at  pictures,  a  day  to  visit  the 
shore  of  the  sea,  a  day  for  picnics,  a  day  to  get  acquainted 
with  your  wife  and  children,  a  day  for  poetry  and  art,  a 
day  on  which  to  read  old  letters  and  to  meet  friends,  a  day 
to  cultivate  the  amenities  of  life,  a  day  for  those  who  live 
in  tenements  to  feel  the  soft  grass  beneath  their  feet.  In 
short,  Sunday  should  be  a  day  of  joy.  The  church  en- 
deavors to  fill  it  with  gloom  and  sadness,  with  stupid  ser- 
mons and  dyspeptic  theology. 

Nothing  could  be  more  cowardly  than  the  effort  to  com- 
pel the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  law.  We  of  America 
have  outgrown  the  childishness  of  the  last  century  ;  we 
laugh  at  the  superstitions  of  our  fathers.  We  have  made 
up  our  minds  to  be  as  happy  as  we  can  be,  knowing  that 
the  way  to  be  happy  is  to  make  others  so,  that  the  time  to 
be  happy  is  now,  whether  that  now  is  Sunday  or  any  other 
day  in  the  week. 

Question.  Under  a  Federal  Constitution  guaranteeing 
civil  and  religious  liberty,  are  the  so-called  "  Blue  Laws  " 
constitutional  ? 

Answer.  No,  they  are  not.  But  the  probability  is  that 
the  Supreme  Courts  of  most  of  the  States  would  decide  the 
other  way.  And  yet  all  these  laws  are  clearly  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Federal  Constitution  and  the  constitutions 
of  most  of  the  States. 

I  hope  to  live  until  all  these  foolish  laws  are  repealed 


INTERVIEWS,  535 

and  until  we  are  in  the  highest  and  noblest  sense  a  free 
people.  And  by  free  I  mean  each  having  the  right  to  do 
anything  that  does  not  interfere  with  the  rights  or  with  the 
happiness  of  another,  I  want  to  see  the  time  when  we  live 
for  this  world  and  when  all  shall  endeavor  to  increase,  by 
education,  by  reason,  and  by  persuasion,  the  sum  of  human 

happiness. — New  York  Times,  July  21,  1893 

THE  PARLIAMENT  OF  RELIGIONS. 

Qtiestion,  The  Parliament  of  Religions  was  called  with  a 
view  to  discussing  the  great  religions  of  the  world  on  the 
broad  platform  of  tolerance.  Supposing  this  to  have  been 
accomplished,  what  effect  is  it  likely  to  have  on  the  future 
of  creeds  ? 

Answer.  It  was  a  good  thing  to  get  the  representatives  of 
all  creeds  to  meet  and  tell  their  beliefs.  The  tendency,  I 
think,  is  to  do  away  with  prejudice,  with  provincialism, 
with  egotism.  We  know  that  the  difference  between  the 
great  religions,  so  far  as  belief  is  concerned,  amounts  to 
but  little.  Their  gods  have  different  names,  but  in  other 
respects  they  differ  but  little.  They  are  all  cruel  and 
ignorant. 

Question.  Do  you  think  likely  that  the  time  is  coming 
when  all  the  religions  of  the  world  will  be  treated  with  the 
liberality  that  is  now  characterizing  the  attitude  of  one 
sect  toward  another  in  Christendom  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  because  I  think  that  all  religions  will  be 
found  to  be  of  equal  authority,  and  because  I  believe  that 
the  supernatural  will  be  discarded  and  that  man  will  give 
up  his  vain  and  useless  efforts  to  get  back  of  nature — to 
answer  the  questions  of  whence  and  whither?  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  various  sects  do  not  love  one  another.  The 
keenest  hatred  is  religious  hatred.  The  most  malicious 
malice  is  found  in  the  hearts  of  those  who  love  their 
enemies. 


53^  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Bishop  Newman,  in  replying  to  a  learned  Bud 
dhist  at  the  Parliament  of  Religions,  said  that  Buddhism 
had  given  to  the  world  no  helpful  literature,  no  social 
system,  and  no  heroic  virtues.     Is  this  true  ? 

A^iswer.  Bishop  Newman  is  a  verj^  prejudiced  man. 
Probably  he  got  his  information  from  the  missionaries, 
Buddha  was  undoubtedly  a  great  teacher.  Long  before 
Christ  lived  Buddha  taught  the  brotherhood  of  man.  He 
said  that  intelligence  was  the  only  lever  capable  of  raising 
mankind.  His  followers,  to  say  the  least  of  them,  are  as 
good  as  the  followers  of  Christ.  Bishop  Newman  is  a 
Methodist — a  follower  of  John  Wesley — and  he  has  the 
prejudices  of  the  sect  to  which  he  belongs.  We  must 
remember  that  all  prejudices  are  honest. 

Question.  Is  Christian  society,  or  rather  society  in  Chris- 
tian  countries,  cursed  with  fewer  robbers,  assassins,  and 
thieves,  proportionately,  than  countries  where  "heathen" 
religions  predominate? 

Answer.  I  think  not.  I  do  not  believe  that  there  are 
more  lynchings,  more  mob  murders  in  India  or  Turkey 
or  Persia  than  in  some  Christian  States  of  the  great 
Republic.  Neither  will  you  find  more  train  robbers,  more 
forgers,  more  thieves  in  heathen  lands  than  in  Christian 
countries.  Here  the  jails  are  full,  the  penitentiaries  are 
crowded,  and  the  hangmen  are  busy.  All  over  Christen- 
dom, as  many  assert,  crime  is  on  the  increase,  going  hand 
in  hand  with  poverty.  The  truth  is,  that  some  of  the 
wisest  and  best  men  are  filled  with  apprehension  for  the 
future,  but  I  believe  in  the  race  and  have  confidence  in  man. 

Question.  How  can  society  be  so  reconstructed  that  all 
this  horrible  suffering,  resultant  from  poverty  and  its 
natural  associate,  crime,  may  be  abolished,  or  at  least  re- 
duced to  a  minimum  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place  we  should  stop  supporting  the 
useless.    The  burden  of  superstition  should  be  taken  from 


INTERVIEWS.  537 

the  shoulders  of  industry.  In  the  next  place  men  should 
stop  bowing  to  wealth  instead  of  worth.  Men  should  be 
Judged  by  what  they  do,  by  what  they  are,  instead  of  by 
the  property  they  have.  Only  those  able  to  raise  and 
educate  children  should  have  them.  Children  should  be 
better  born — better  educated.  The  process  of  regeneration 
will  be  slow,  but  it  will  be  sure.  The  religion  of  our  day 
is  supported  by  the  worst,  by  the  most  dangerous  people 
in  society,  I  do  not  allude  to  murderers  or  burglars,  or 
even  to  the  little  thieves.  I  mean  those  who  debauch 
courts  and  legislatures  and  elections — those  who  make 
millions  by  legal  fraud. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  Theosophists  ?  Are 
they  sincere — have  they  any  real  basis  for  their  psychologi- 
cal theories? 

Answer.  The  Theosophists  may  be  sincere.  I  do  not 
know.  But  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  their  theories  are 
without  any  foundation  in  fact — that  their  doctrines  are  as 
unreal  as  their  "  astral  bodies,"  and  as  absurd  as  a  contra- 
diction in  mathematics.  We  have  had  vagaries  and  theories 
enough.  We  need  the  religion  of  the  real,  the  faith  that 
rests  on  fact.     Let  us  turn  our  attention  to  this  world — • 

the  world  in  which  we  live. — New  York  Herald,  September,  1893. 

CLEVELAND'S  HAWAIIAN  POLICY. 

Qtiestion.  Colonel,  what  do  you  think  about  Mr.  Cleve- 
land's Hawaiian  policy  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  exceedingly  laughable  and  a  little 
dishonest — with  the  further  fault  that  it  is  wholly  uncon- 
stitutional. This  is  not  a  one-man  Government,  and  while 
Liliuckalani  may  be  Queen,  Cleveland  is  certainly  not  a 
king.  The  worst  thing  about  the  whole  matter,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  is  the  bad  faith  that  was  shown  by  Mr. 
Cleveland — the  double-dealing..  He  sent  Mr.  Willis  as 
Minister  to  the  Provisional  Government  and  by  that  act 


538  INTERVIEWS. 

admitted  the  existence,  and  the  rightful  existence,  of  the 
Provisional  Government  of  the  Sandwich  Islands, 

When  Mr.  Willis  started  he  gave  him  two  letters.  One 
was  addressed  to  Dole,  President  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, in  which  he  addressed  Dole  as  "  Great  and  good 
friend,"  and  at  the  close,  being  a  devout  Christian,  he 
asked  "God  to  take  care  of  Dole."  This  was  the  first 
letter.  The  letter  of  one  President  to  another;  of  one 
friend  to  another.  The  second  letter  was  addressed  to  Mr. 
Willis,  in  which  Mr.  Willis  was  told  to  upset  Dole  at  the 
first  opportunity  and  put  the  deposed  Queen  back  on  her 
throne.  This  may  be  diplomacy,  but  it  is  no  kin  to 
honesty. 

In  my  judgment, it  is  the  worst  thing  connected  with  the 
Hawaiian  affair.  What  must  "the  great  and  good"  Dole 
think  of  our  great  and  bad  President  ?  What  must  other 
nations  think  when  they  read  the  two  letters  and  mentally 
exclaim,  " Look  upon  this  and  then  upon  that"?  I  think 
Mr.  Cleveland  has  acted  arrogantly,  foolishly,  and  unfairly. 
I  am  in  favor  of  obtaining  the  Sandwich  Islands — of  course 
by  fair  means.  I  favor  this  policy  because  I  want  my 
country  to  become  a  power  in  the  Pacific.  All  my  life  I 
have  wanted  this  country  to  own  the  West  Indies,  the 
Bermudas,  the  Bahamas  and  Barbadoes.  They  are  our 
islands.  They  belong  to  this  continent,  and  for  any  other 
nation  to  take  them  or  claim  them  was,  and  is,  a  piece  of 
impertinence  and  impudence. 

So  I  would  like  to  see  the  Sandwich  Islands  annexed  to 
the  United  States.  They  are  a  good  way  from  San  Fran- 
cisco and  our  Western  shore,  but  they  are  nearer  to  us  than 
they  are  to  any  other  nation.  I  think  they  would  be  of 
^eat  importance.  They  would  tend  to  increase  the  Asiatic 
trade,  and  they  certainly  would  be  important  in  case  of  war. 
■?/e  should  have  fortifications  on  those  islands  that  no  naval 
:?ower  could  take. 


INTERVIEWS.  539 

Some  objection  has  been  made  on  the  ground  that  under 
our  system  the  people  of  those  islands  would  have  to  be 
represented  in  Congress.  I  say  yes,  represented  by  a 
delegate  until  the  islands  become  a  real  part  of  the  country, 
and  by  that  time,  there  would  be  several  hundred  thousand 
Americans  living  there,  capable  of  sending  over  respectable 
members  of  Congress. 

Now,  I  think  that  Mr.  Cleveland  has  made  a  very  great 
mistake.  First,  I  think  he  was  mistaken  as  to  the  facts  in 
the  Sandwich  Islands ;  secondly,  as  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  thirdly,  as  to  the  powers  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States. 

Question.  In  your  experience  as  a  lawyer  what  was  the 
most  unique  case  in  which  you  were  ever  engaged  ? 

Ayiswer.  The  Star  Route  trial.  Every  paper  in  the 
country,  but  one,  was  against  the  defence,  and  that  one  was 
a  little  sheet  owned  by  one  of  the  defendants.  I  received  a 
note  from  a  man  living  in  a  little  town  in  Ohio  criticising 
me  for  defending  the  accused.  In  reply  I  wrote  that  I 
supposed  he  was  a  sensible  man  and  that  he,  of  course, 
knew  what  he  was  talking  about  when  he  said  the  accused 
were  guilty ;  that  the  Government  needed  just  such  men 
as  he,  and  that  he  should  come  to  the  trial  at  once  and 

testify.     The  man  wrote  back:  **  Dear  Colonel:  I  am  a 

fool." 

Question.  Will  the  church  and  the  stage  ever  work 
together  for  the  betterment  of  the  w^orld,  and  what  is  the 
province  of  each  ? 

Answer.  The  church  and  stage  will  never  work  together. 
The  pulpit  pretends  that  fiction  is  fact.  The  stage  pretends 
that  fiction  is  fact.  The  pulpit  pretence  is  dishonest — that 
of  the  stage  is  sincere.  The  actor  is  true  to  art,  and 
honestly  pretends  to  be  what  he  is  not.  The  actor  is 
natural,  if  he  is  great,  and  in  this  naturalness  is  his  truth 
and  his  sincerity.     The  pulpit  is  unnatural,  and  for  thai 


540  INTERVIEWS. 

reason  untrue.  The  pulpit  is  for  another  world,  the  stage 
for  this.  The  stage  is  good  because  it  is  natural,  because  it 
portrays  real  and  actual  life;  because  "it  holds  the  mirror 
up  to  nature."  The  pulpit  is  weak  because  it  too  often 
belittles  and  bemeans  this  life;  because  it  slanders  and 
calumniates  the  natural  and  is  the  enemy  of  joy, — Theim^r- 

Ocean  ^  Chicago,  February  2, 1894. 

ORATORS  AND  ORATORY.* 

Question.  I  should  be  glad  if  you  would  tell  me  what  yoti 
think  the  difEerences  are  between  English  and  American 
oratory  ? 

Answer.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  real  English 
and  the  real  American  orator.  Oratory  is  the  same  the 
world  overo  The  man  who  thinks  on  his  feet,  who  has  the 
pose  of  passion,  the  face  that  thought  illumines,  a  voice  in 
harmony  with  the  ideals  expressed,  who  has  logic  like  a 
column  and  poetry  like  a  vine,  who  transfigures  the  com- 
mon, dresses  the  ideals  of  the  people  in  purple  and  fine 
linen,  who  has  the  art  of  finding  the  best  and  noblest  in 
his  hearers,  and  who  in  a  thousand  wa^'^s  creates  the  climate 
in  which  the  best  grows  and  flourishes  and  bursts  into 
blossom — that  man  is  an  orator,  no  matter  of  what  time  or 
what  country. 

Question.  If  j^ou  were  to  compare  individual  English  and 
American  orators — recent  or  living  orators  in  particular— 
what  would  you  say  ? 

*  It  was  at  his  own  law-oflSce  in  New  York  City  that  I  had  my  taIR  with  that  very  no- 
table  American,  Col,  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  •' Bob"Ingersoll,Americanscallhimaflfec- 
tionately  ;   in  a  company  of  friends  it  is  "  The  Colonel."''' 

A  more  interesting  personality  it  would  be  hard  to  find,  and  those  who  know  even  a 
little  of  him  will  tell  you  that  a  bigger-hearted  man  probably  does  not  live.  Suppose  a 
well-knit  frame,  grown  stouter  than  it  once  was,  and  a  fine,  strong  face,  with  a  vivid 
gleam  in  tne  eyes,  a  deep,  uncommonly  musical  voice,  clear  cut,  decisive,  and  a  manner 
entirely  delightful,  yet  tinged  with  a  certain  reserve.  Introduce  a  smokiug  cigar,  the 
smoke  rising  in  little  curia  and  billows,  then  imagine  a  rugged  sort  of  picturesqneness  in 
dress,  and  you  get,  not  by  any  means  the  man,  but,  still,  some  notion  of  "  Bob"  Ingersoll. 

Colonel  Ingersoll  stands  at  the  front  of  American  orators.  The  natural  thing,  there- 
fore, was  that  I  should  ask  him— a  master  in  the  art— about  oratory.  What  he  said  I  shah 
give  in  his  own  words  precisely  as  I  took  them  dowTi  from  his  lips,  for  in  the  case  of  such 
a  good  commander  of  the  old  English  tongue  that  is  of  some  importance.  But  the  wonder- 
ful limpidness,  the  charming  pellncidness  of  Ingersoll  can  only  be  adequately  understoed 
Wlien  you  also  have  the  finishing  touch  of  his  facile  voice. 


INTERVIEWS.  541 

Answer.  I  have  never  heard  any  of  the  great  English 
speakers,  and  consequently  can  pass  no  judgment  as  to 
their  merfts,  except  such  as  depends  on  reading.  I  think, 
however,  the  finest  paragraph  ever  uttered  in  Great  Britain 
was  b}^  Curran  in  his  defence  of  Rowan.  I  have  never  read 
one  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  speeches,  only  fragments.  I  think 
he  lacks  logic.  Bright  was  a  great  speaker,  but  he  lacked 
imagination  and  the  creative  faculty.  Disraeli  spoke  for 
the  clubs,  and  his  speeches  were  artificial.  We  have  had 
several  fine  speakers  in  America.  I  think  that  Thomas 
Corw^n  stands  at  the  top  of  the  natural  orators.  Sergeant 
S.  PrentisSj  the  lawyer,  was  a  very  great  talker ;  Henry 
Ward  Beecher  was  the  greatest  orator  that  the  pulpit  has 
produced.  Theodore  Parker  was  a  great  orator.  In  this 
country,  however,  probably  Daniel  Webster  occupies  the 
highest  place  in  general  esteem. 

Question.  Which  would  you  say  are  the  better  orators, 
speaking  generally,  the  American  people  or  the  English 
people  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Americans  are,  on  the  average,  better 
talkers  than  the  English.  I  think  England  has  produced 
the  greatest  literature  of  the  world;  but  I  do  not  think 
England  has  produced  the  greatest  orators  of  the  world. 
I  know  of  no  English  orator  equal  to  Webster  or  Corwin 
or  Beecher, 

Question,  Would  you  mind  telling  me  how  it  was  you 
came  to  be  a  public  speaker,  a  lecturer,  an  orator? 

Answer,  We  call  this  America  of  ours  free,  and  yet  I  found 
it  was  ver}^  far  from  free.  Our  writers  and  our  speakers 
declared  that  here  in  America  church  and  state  were 
divorced.  I  found  this  to  be  untrue.  I  found  that  the 
church  was  supported  by  the  state  in  many  ways,  that 
people  who  failed  to  believe  certain  portions  of  the  creeds 
were  not  allowed  to  testify  in  courts  or  to  hold  office.  It 
occurred   to   me  that   some  one   ought   to   do  something 


542  INTERVIEWS. 

toward  making  this  country  intellectually  free,  and  after  a 
while  I  thought  that  I  might  as  well  endeavor  to  do  this 
as  wait  for  another.  This  is  the  way  in  which  I  came  to 
make  speeches ;  it  was  an  action  in  favor  of  libert3^  I 
have  said  things  because  I  wanted  to  say  them,  and  because 
I  thought  they  ought  to  be  said. 

Question.  Perhaps  you  will  tell  me  your  methods  as  a 
speaker,  for  I'm  sure  it  would  be  interesting  to  know  them  ? 

Answer.  Sometimes,  and  frequently,  I  deliver  a  lecture 
several  times  before  it  is  written.  I  have  it  taken  by  a 
shorthand  writer,  and  afterward  written  out.  At  other 
times  I  have  dictated  a  lecture,  and  delivered  it  from  man- 
uscript. The  course  pursued  depends  on  how  I  happen  to 
feel  at  the  time.  Sometimes  I  read  a  lecture,  and  some- 
times I  deliver  lectures  without  any  notes — this,  again, 
depending  much  on  how  I  happen  to  feel.  So  far  as 
methods  are  concerned,  everything  should  depend  on  feel- 
ing. Attitude,  gesture,  voice,  emphasis,  should  all  be  in  ac- 
cord with  and  spring  from  feeling,  from  the  inside. 

Question.  Is  there  any  possibility  of  your  coming  to 
England,  and,  I  need  hardly  add,  of  your  coming  to  speak? 

Answer.  I  have  thought  of  going  over  to  England,  and  I 
may  do  so.  There  is  an  England  in  England  for  which  I 
have  the  highest  possible  admiration,  the  England  of  cu!  • 

ture,  of  art,  and  of  principle. — TJie  Sketch,  London,  Eng„  March  21, 1894. 

CATHOLICISM  AND  PROTESTANTISM.  THE  POPE, 
THE  A.  P.  A.,  AGNOSTICISM  AND  THE  CHURCH. 

Question.  Which  do  you  regard  as  the  better,  Catholicism 
or  Protestantism  ? 

Answer.  Protestantism  is  better  than  Catholicism  because 
there  is  less  of  it.  Protestantism  does  not  teach  that  a 
monk  is  better  than  a  husband  and  father,  that  a  nun  is 
holier  than  a  mother.  Protestants  do  not  believe  in  the 
confessional.      Neither  do  they  pretend  that  priests  can  for- 


INTERVIEWS.  543 

give  sins.  Protestantism  has  fewer  ceremonies  and  less 
opera  bouffe,  clothes,  caps,  tiaras,  mitres,  crooks  and  holy 
toys.  Catholics  have  an  infallible  man — an  old  Italian. 
Protestants  have  an  infallible  book,  written  by  Hebrews 
before  they  were  civilized.  The  infallible  man  is  generally 
wrong,  and  the  infallible  book  is  filled  with  mistakes  and 
contradictions.  Catholics  and  Protestants  are  both  enemies 
of  intellectual  freedom — of  real  education,  but  both  are 
opposed  to  education  enough  to  make  free  men  and  women. 

Between  the  Catholics  and  Protestants  there  has  been 
cLbout  as  much  difference  as  there  is  between  crocodiles  and 
alngators.  Both  have  done  the  worst  they  could,  both  are 
as  bad  as  they  can  be,  and  the  world  is  getting  tired  of  both. 
The  world  is  not  going  to  choose  either — both  are  to  be  re- 
jected. 

Question.  Are  you  willing  to  give  your  opinion  of  the 
Pope? 

Answer.  It  may  be  that  the  Pope  thinks  he  is  infallible, 
but  I  doubt  it.  He  may  think  that  he  is  the  agent  of  God, 
but  I  guess  not.  He  may  know  more  than  other  people,  but 
if  he  does  he  has  kept  it  to  himself.  He  does  not  seem  sat- 
isfied with  standing  in  the  place  and  stead  of  God  in  spirit- 
ual matters,  but  desires  temporal  power.  He  wishes  to  be 
Pope  and  King.  He  imagines  that  he  has  the  right  to  con- 
trol the  belief  of  all  the  world  ;  that  he  is  the  shepherd  of 
all  "  sheep  "  and  that  the  fleeces  belong  to  him.  He  thinks 
that  in  his  keeping  is  the  conscience  of  mankind.  So  he  im- 
agines that  his  blessing  is  a  great  benefit  to  the  faithful  and 
that  his  prayers  can  change  the  course  of  natural  events. 
He  is  a  strange  mixture  of  the  serious  and  comical.  He 
claims  to  represent  God,  and  admits  that  he  is  almost  a 
prisoner.  There  is  something  pathetic  in  the  condition  of 
this  pontiff.  When  I  think  of  him,  I  think  of  Lear  on  the 
heath,  old,  broken,  touched  with  insanity,  and  yet,  in  his 
own  opinion,  "  every  inch  a  king." 


544  INTERVIEWS. 

The  Pope  is  a  fragment,  a  remnant,  a  siired,  a  patch  of 
ancient  power  and  glory.  He  is  a  survival  of  the  unfittest, 
a  souvenir  of  theocracy,  a  relic  of  the  supernatural.  Of 
course  he  will  have  a  few  successors,  and  they  will  become 
more  and  more  comical,  more  and  more  helpless  and  im- 
potent as  the  world  grows  wise  and  free.  I  am  not  blam- 
ing the  Pope.  He  was  poisoned  at  the  breast  of  his  mother. 
Superstition  was  mingled  with  her  milk.  He  was  poisoned 
at  school — taught  to  distrust  his  reason  and  to  live  by  faith. 
And  so  it  may  be  that  his  mind  was  so  twisted  and  tor- 
tured out  of  shape  that  he  now  really  believes  that  he  is  the 
infallible  agent  of  an  infinite  God. 

Question.  Are  you  in  favor  of  the  A.  P.  A.  ? 

Answer.  In  this  country  I  see  no  need  of  secret  political 
societies.  I  think  it  better  to  fight  in  the  open  field.  I  am 
a  believer  in  religious  liberty,  in  allowing  all  sects  to  preach 
their  doctrines  and  to  make  as  many  converts  as  they  can. 
As  long  as  we  have  free  speech  and  a  free  press  I  think 
there  is  no  danger  of  the  country  being  ruled  by  any  church. 
The  Catholics  are  much  better  than  their  creed,  and  the 
same  can  be  said  of  nearly  all  members  of  orthodox  churches. 
A  majority  of  American  Catholics  think  a  great  deal  more 
of  this  country  than  they  do  of  their  church.  When  they 
are  in  good  health  they  are  on  our  side.  It  is  only  when 
they  are  very  sick  that  they  turn  their  eyes  toward  Rome. 
If  they  were  in  the  majority,  of  course,  they  would  destroy 
all  other  churches  and  imprison,  torture  and  kill  all  Infidels. 
But  they  will  never  be  in  the  majority.  They  increase  now 
only  because  Catholics  come  from  other  countries.  In  a 
few  years  that  supply  will  cease,  and  then  the  Catholic 
Church  will  grow  weaker  every  day.  The  free  secular 
school  is  the  enemy  of  priestcraft  and  superstition,  and  the 
people  of  this  country  will  never  consent  to  the  destruction 
of  that  institution.  I  want  no  man  persecuted  on  account 
of  his  religion. 


INTERVIEWS.  545 

Question.  If  there  is  no  beatitude,  or  heaven,  how  do  you 
account  for  the  continual  struggle  in  every  natural  heart 
for  its  own  betterment  ? 

Answer.  Man  has  many  wants,  and  all  his  efforts  are  the 
children  of  wants.  If  he  wanted  nothing  he  would  do 
nothing.  We  civilize  the  savage  by  increasing  his  wants, 
by  cultivating  his  fancy,  his  appetites,  his  desires.  He  is 
then  willing  to  work  to  satisfy  these  new  wants.  Man 
always  tries  to  do  things  in  the  easiest  way.  His  constant 
effort  is  to  accomplish  more  with  less  work.  He  invents  a 
machine;  then  he  improves  it,  his  idea  being  to  make  it 
perfect.  He  wishes  to  produce  the  best.  So  in  every  de- 
partment of  effort  and  knowledge  he  seeks  the  highest  suc- 
cess, and  he  seeks  it  because  it  is  for  his  own  good  here  in 
this  world.  So  he  finds  that  there  is  a  relation  between 
happiness  and  conduct,  and  he  tries  to  find  out  what  he 
must  do  to  produce  the  greatest  enjoyment.  This  is  the 
basis  of  morality,  of  law  and  ethics.  We  are  so  constitu- 
ted that  we  love  proportion,  color,  harmony.  This  is 
the  artistic  man.  Morality  is  the  harmony  and  proportion 
of  conduct — the  music  of  life.  Man  continually  seeks  to 
better  his  condition — not  because  he  is  immortal — but  be- 
cause he  is  capable  of  grief  and  pain,  because  he  seeks  for 
happiness.  Man  wishes  to  respect  himself  and  to  gain  the 
respect  of  others.  The  brain  wants  light,  the  heart  wants 
love.  Growth  is  natural.  The  struggle  to  overcome 
temptation,  to  be  good  and  noble,  brave  and  sincere,  to 
reach,  if  possible,  the  perfect,  is  no  evidence  of  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul  or  of  the  existence  of  other  worlds.  Men 
live  to  excel,  to  become  distinguished,  to  enjoy,  and  so 
they  strive,  each  in  his  own  way,  to  gain  the  ends  de- 
sired. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  the  race  is  growing  moral 
or  immoral? 

Answer.  The  world   is   growing   better.     There  is  more 


546  INTERVIEWS. 

real  liberty,  more  thought,  more  intelligence  than  ever  be- 
fore. The  world  was  never  so  charitable  or  generous  as 
now.  We  do  not  put  honest  debtors  in  prison,  we  no  longer 
believe  in  torture.  Punishments  are  less  severe.  We  place 
a  higher  value  on  human  life.  We  are  far  kinder  to  animals. 
To  this,  however,  there  is  one  terrible  exception.  The 
vivisectors,  those  who  cut,  torture  and  mutilate  in  the  name 
of  science,  disgrace  our  age.  They  excite  the  horror  and 
indignation  of  all  good  people.  Leave  out  the  actions  of 
those  wretches,  and  animals  are  better  treated  than  ever  be- 
fore. So  there  is  less  beating  of  wives  and  whipping  of 
children.  The  whip  is  no  longer  found  in  the  civilized 
home.  Intelligent  parents  now  govern  by  kindness,  love 
and  reason.  The  standard  of  honor  is  higher  than  ever. 
Contracts  are  more  sacred,  and  men  do  nearer  as  they  agree. 
Man  has  more  confidence  in  his  fellow-man,  and  in  the 
goodness  of  human  nature.  Yes,  the  world  is  getting 
better,  nobler  and  grander  every  da3^  We  are  moving 
along  the  highway  of  progress  on  our  way  to  the  Eden  of 
the  future. 

Question.  Are  the  doctrines  of  Agnosticism  gaining  ground, 
and  what,  in  your  opinion,  will  be  the  future  of  the 
church  ? 

Answer.  The  Agnostic  is  intellectually  honest.  He  knows 
the  limitations  of  his  mind.  He  is  convinced  that  the 
questions  of  origin  and  destiny  cannot  be  answered  by  man. 
He  knows  that  he  cannot  answer  these  questions,  and  he  is 
candid  enough  to  say  so.  The  Agnostic  has  good  mental 
manners.  He  does  not  call  belief  or  hope  or  wish,  a 
demonstration.  He  knows  the  difference  between  hope  and 
belief— between  belief  and  knowledge— and  he  keeps  these 
distinctions  in  his  mind.  He  does  not  say  that  a  certain 
theory  is  true  because  he  wishes  it  to  be  true.  He  tries  to 
go  according  to  evidence,  in  harmony  with  facts,  without 
regard  to  his  own  desires  or  the  wish  of  the  public.    He  has 


INTERVIEWS.  547 

the  courage  of  his  convictions  and  the  modesty  of  his  ig- 
norance. The  theologian  is  his  opposite.  He  is  certain 
and  sure  of  the  existence  of  things  and  beings  and  worlds 
of  which  there  is,  and  can  be,  no  evidence.  He  relies  on 
assertion,  and  in  all  debate  attacks  the  motive  of  his  oppo- 
nent instead  of  answering  his  arguments.  All  savages  know 
the  origin  and  destiny  of  man.  About  other  things  they 
know  but  little.  The  theologian  is  much  the  same.  The 
Agnostic  has  given  up  the  hope  of  ascertaining  the  nature 
of  the"  First  Cause" — the  hope  of  ascertaining  whether  or 
not  there  was  a  "First  Cause."  He  admits  that  he  does  not 
know  whether  or  not  there  is  an  infinite  Being.  He  admits 
that  these  questions  cannot  be  answered,  and  so  he  refuses 
to  answer.  He  refuses  also  to  pretend.  He  knows  that 
the  theologian  does  not  know,  and  he  has  the  courage  to 
say  so. 

He  knows  that  the  religious  creeds  rest  on  assumption, 
supposition,  assertion — on  myth  and  legend,  on  ignorance 
and  superstition,  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  their 
truth.  The  Agnostic  bends  his  energies  in  the  opposite 
direction.  He  occupies  himself  with  this  world,  with  things 
that  can  be  ascertained  and  understood.  He  turns  his  at- 
tention to  the  sciences,  to  the  solution  of  questions  that 
touch  the  well-being  of  man.  He  wishes  to  prevent  and  to 
cure  diseases ;  to  lengthen  life ;  to  provide  homes  and 
raiment  and  food  for  man ;  to  supply  the  wants  of  the 
body. 

He  also  cultivates  the  arts.  He  believes  in  painting  and 
sculpture,  in  music  and  the  drama — the  needs  of  the  soul. 
The  Agnostic  believes  in  developing  the  brain,  in  cultivat- 
ing the  affections,  the  tastes,  the  conscience,  the  judgment, 
to  the  end  that  man  may  be  happy  in  this  world.  He  seeks  to 
find  the  relation  of  things,  the  condition  of  happiness.  He 
wishes  to  enslave  the  forces  of  nature  to  the  end  that  they 
may  perform  the  work  of  the  world.    Back  of  all  progress 


548  INTERVIEWS. 

are  the  real  thinkers  ;  the  finders  of  facts,  those  who  turn 
their  attention  to  the  world  in  which  we  live.  The  theolo- 
gian has  never  been  a  help,  always  a  hindrance.  He  has 
always  kept  his  back  to  the  sunrise.  With  him  all  wisdom 
was  in  the  past.  He  appealed  to  the  dead.  He  was  and  is  the 
enemy  of  reason,  of  investigation,  of  thought  and  progress. 
The  church  has  never  given  "sanctuary"  to  a  persecuted 
truth. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  ideas  of  the  Agnostic  are 
gaining  ground.  The  scientific  spirit  has  taken  possession 
of  the  intellectual  world.  Theological  methods  are  unpop- 
ular to-day,  even  in  theological  schools.  The  attention 
of  men  everywhere  is  being  directed  to  the  affairs  of  this 
world,  this  life.  The  gods  are  growing  indistinct,  and,  like 
the  shapes  of  clouds,  they  are  changing  as  they  fade.  The 
idea  of  special  providence  has  been  substantially  abandoned. 
People  are  losing,  and  intelligent  people  have  lost,  confi- 
dence in  prayer.  To-day  no  intelligent  person  believes  in 
miracles — in  a  violation  of  the  facts  in  nature.  They  may 
believe  that  there  used  to  be  miracles  a  good  while  ago,  but 
not  now.  The  "supernatural"  is  losing  its  power,  its  in- 
fluence, and  the  church  is  growing  weaker  every  day. 

The  church  is  supported  by  the  people,  and  in  order  to 
gain  the  support  of  the  people  it  must  reflect  their  ideas, 
their  hopes  and  fears.  As  the  people  advance,  the  creeds 
will  be  changed,  either  by  changing  the  words  or  giving 
new  meanings  to  the  old  words.  The  church,  in  order  to 
live,  must  agree  substanially  with  those  who  support  it,  and 
consequently  it  will  change  to  any  extent  that  may  be 
necessarj^  If  the  church  remains  true  to  the  old  standards 
then  it  will  lose  the  support  cf  progressive  people,  and  if  the 
people  generall}^  advance  the  church  will  die.  But  my 
opinion  is  that  it  will  slowly  change,  that  the  minister  will 
preach  what  the  members  want  to  hear,  and  that  the  creed 
will  be  controlled  by  the  contribution  box.     One  of  these 


INTERVIEWS.  549 

txtLys  the  preachers  may  become  teachers,  and  when  that 
happens  the  church  will  be  of  use. 

Question.  What  do  you  regard  as  the  greatest  of  all  themes 
in  poetry  and  song  ? 

Answer.  Love  and  Death.  The  same  is  true  of  the  great- 
est music.  In  " Tristan  and  Isolde"  is  the  greatest  music  of 
love  and  death.  In  Shakespeare  the  greatest  themes  are  love 
and  death.  In  all  real  poetry,  in  all  real  music,  the  domi- 
nant, the  triumphant  tone,  is  love,  and  the  minor,  the  sad 
refrain,  the  shadow,  the  background,  the  mj^stery,  is  death. 

Questio7i,  What  would  be  your  advice  to  an  intelligent 
5'oung  man  just  starting  out  in  life? 

Answer.  I  would  say  to  him :  "Be  true  to  your  ideal. 
Cultivate  your  heart  and  brain.  Follow  the  light  of  your 
reason.  Get  all  the  happiness  out  of  life  that  you  possibly 
can.  Do  not  care  for  power,  but  strive  to  be  useful.  First 
of  all,  support  yourself  so  that  you  may  not  be  a  burden  to 
others.  If  you  are  successful,  if  you  gain  a  surplus,  use  it 
for  the  good  of  others.  Own  yourself  and  live  and  die  a 
free  man.  Make  your  home  a  heaven,  love  your  wife  and 
govern  your  children  by  kindness.  Be  good  natured,  cheer- 
ful, forgiving  and  generous.  Find  out  the  conditions  of 
happiness,  and  then  be  wise  enough  to  live  in  accordance 
with  them.  Cultivate  intellectual  hospitality,  express  your 
honest  thoughts,  love  your   friends   and   be  just  to  your 

enemies." — ^'ew  York  Herald^  September  16,  1894. 

WOMAN  AND  HER  DOMAIN. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  effect  of  the  mul- 
tiplicity of  women's  clubs  as  regards  the  intellectual,  moral 
and  domestic  status  of  their  members  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  women  should  have  clubs  and 
societies,  that  they  should  get  together  and  exchange  ideas. 
Women,  as  a  rule,  are  provincial  and  conservative.  They 
keep  alive  all  the  sentimental  mistakes  and  superstitions. 


550  INTERVIEWS. 

Now,  if  they  can  only  get  away  from  these,  and  get  abreast 
with  the  tide  of  the  times,  and  think  as  well  as  feel,  it  will 
be  better  for  them  and  their  children.  You  know  St.  Paul 
tells  women  that  if  they  want  to  know  anything  they  must 
ask  their  husbands.  For  many  centuries  they  have  followed 
this  orthodox  advice,  and  of  course  they  have  not  learned  a 
great  deal,  because  their  husbands  could  not  answer  their 
questions.  Husbands,  as  a  rule,  do  not  know  a  great  deal, 
and  it  will  not  do  for  every  wife  to  depend  on  the  ignorance 
of  her  worst  half.  The  women  of  to-day  are  the  great 
readers,  and  no  book  is  a  great  success  unless  it  pleases  the 
women. 

As  a  result  of  this,  all  the  literature  of  the  world  has 
changed,  so  that  now  in  all  departments  the  thoughts  of 
women  are  taken  into  consideration,  and  women  have 
thoughts,  because  they  are  the  intellectual  equals  of  men. 

There  are  no  statesmen  in  this  country  the  equals  of 
Harriet  Martineau;  probably  no  novelists  the  equals  of 
George  Eliot  or  George  Sand,  and  I  think  Ouida  the 
greatest  living  novelist.  I  think  her  "Ariadne  "  is  one  of  the 
greatest  novels  in  the  English  language.  There  are  few 
novels  better  than  ''  Consuelo,"  few  poems  better  than 
•"Mother  and  Poet" 

So  in  all  departments  women  are  advancing ;  some  of 
them  have  taken  the  highest  honors  at  medical  colleges ; 
others  are  prominent  in  the  sciences,  some  are  great  artists, 
and  there  are  several  very  fine  sculptors,  &c.,  &c. 

So  3^ou  can  readily  see  what  my  opinion  is  on  that  point. 

I  am  in  favor  of  giving  woman  all  the  domain  she  con- 
quers, and  as  the  world  becomes  civilized  the  domain  that 
she  can  conquer  will  steadily  increase. 

Question.  But,  Colonel,  is  there  no  danger  of  greatly  inter- 
fering with  a  woman's  duties  as  wife  and  mother  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  dangerous  to  think,  or 
that  thought  interferes  with  love  or  the  duties  of  wife  or 


INTERVIEWS.  551 

mother.  I  think  the  contrary  is  the  truth  ;  the  greater  the 
brain  the  greater  the  power  to  love,  the  greater  the  power 
to  discharge  all  duties  and  obligations,  so  I  have  no  fear  for 
the  future.  About  women  voting  I  don't  care ;  whatever 
they  want  to  do  they  have  my  consent. — The  Democrat,  Grs^nd. 

lUpidfl,  Michigan,  1894. 

PROFESSOR  SWING. 

Qtiesiion.  Since  you  were  last  in  this  city,  Colonel,  a  dis- 
tinguished man  has  passed  away  in  the  person  of  Professor 
Swing.  The  public  will  be  interested  to  have  your  opinion 
of  him. 

Answer.  I  think  Professor  Swing  did  a  great  amount  of 
good.  He  helped  to  civilize  the  church  and  to  humanize 
the  people.  His  influence  was  in  the  right  direction — 
toward  the  light.  In  his  youth  he  was  acquainted  with 
toil,  poverty,  and  hardship ;  his  road  was  filled  with  thorns, 
and  yet  he  lived  and  scattered  flowers  in  the  paths  of  many 
people.  At  first  his  soul  was  in  the  dungeon  of  a  savage 
creed,  where  the  windows  were  very  small  and  closely 
grated,  and  through  which  struggled  only  a  few  rays  of 
light.  He  longed  for  more  light  and  for  more  liberty,  and 
at  last  his  fellow-prisoners  drove  him  forth,  and  from  that 
time  until  his  death  he  did  what  he  could  to  give  light  and 
liberty  to  the  souls  of  men.  He  was  a  lover  of  nature, 
poetic  in  his  temperament,  charitable  and  merciful.  As 
an  orator  he  may  have  lacked  presence,  pose  and  voice,  but 
he  did  not  lack  force  of  statement  or  beauty  of  expression. 
He  was  a  man  of  wide  learning,  of  great  admiration  of  the 
heroic  and  tender.  He  did  what  he  could  to  raise  the 
standard  of  character,  to  make  his  fellow-men  just  and 
noble.  He  lost  the  provincialism  of  his  youth  and  became 
in  a  very  noble  sense  a  citizen  of  the  world.  He  under- 
stood that  all  the  good  is  not  in  our  race  or  in  our  religion 
— that  in  every  land  there  are  good  and  noble  men,  self- 


552  INTERVIEWS. 

denying  and  lovely  women,  and  that  in  most  respects  other 
religions  are  as  good  as  ours,  and  in  many  respects  better. 
This  gave  him  breadth  of  intellectual  horizon  and  enlarged 
his  sympathy  for  the  failures  of  the  world.  I  regard  his 
death  as  a  great  loss,  and  his  life  as  a  lesson  and  inspira- 
tion.— Inter-Ocean,  Chicago,  October  13,  1894. 

SENATOR  SHERMAN  AND  HIS  BOOK.* 

Qtcestion.  What  do  3"OU  think  of  Senator  Sherman's  book 
— especially  the  part  about  Garfield  ? 

Answer,  Of  course,  I  have  only  read  a  few  extracts  from 
Mr.  Sherman's  reminiscences,  but  I  am  perfectly  satisfied 
that  the  Senator  is  mistaken  about  Garfield's  course.  The 
truth  is  that  Garfield  captured  the  convention  by  his 
course  from  day  to  day,  and  especially  by  the  speech  he 
made  for  Sherman.  After  that  speech,  and  it  was  a  good 
one,  the  best  that  Garfield  ever  made,  the  convention  said, 
"Speak  for  yourself,  John," 

It  was  perfectly  apparent  that  if  the  Blaine  and  Sherman 
forces  should  try  to  unite.  Grant  would  be  nominated.  It 
had  to  be  Grant  or  a  new  man,  and  that  man  was  Garfield. 
It  all  came  about  without  Garfield's  help,  except  in  the 
way  I  have  said.  Garfield  even  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  under  no  circumstances  could  he  accept,  because  he 
was  for  Sherman,  and  honestly  for  him.  He  told  me  that 
he  would  not  allow  his  name  to  go  before  the  convention. 
Just  before  he  was  nominated  I  wrote  him  a  note  in  which 

*  No  one  is  better  qualified  than  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  to  talk  about  Senator  Sherman's 
book  and  the  questions  it  raises  in  political  history.  Mr.  Ingersoll  was  for  years  a  resi- 
dent of  Washington  and  a  next-door  neighbor  to  Mr.  Sherman;  he  was  for  an  even  longer 
period  the  intimate  personal  friend  of  James  G.  Blaine  ;  he  knew  Garfield  from  almost 
daily  contact,  and  of  the  Republican  National  Conventions  concerning  which  Senator 
Sherman  has  raised  points  of  controversy  Mr.  Ingersoll  can  say,  as  the  North  Carolinian 
said  of  the  Confederacy,  "  Part  of  whom  I  am  which.*' 

He  placed  Blaine's  name  before  the  convention  at  Cincinnati  in  1876.  He  made  the 
first  of  the  three  great  nomixiating  speeches  in  convention  history,  Coukling  and  Garfield 
making  the  others  in  1880. 

The  figure  of  the  Plumed  Ejiight  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  created  to  characterize  Mr.  Blaine 
is  part  of  the  latt«r's  memory.  At  Chicago,  four  years  later,  when  Garfield,  dazed  by  the 
irresistible  doubt  of  the  convention,  was  on  the  point  of  refusing  that  in  the  acceptance 
of  which  he  had  no  voluntary  part,  Ingersoll  was  the  adviser  who  showed  him  that  duty 
to  Sherman  required  no  such  action. 


INTERVIEWS.  553 

T  said  he  was  about  to  be  nominated,  and  that  be  must  not 
decline.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  he  acted  with  perfect 
honor,  and  that  he  did  his  best  for  Sherman. 

Question.  Mr.  Sherman  expresses  the  opinion  that  if  he 
had  had  the  *'  moral  strength  "  of  the  Ohio  delegation  in 
his  support  he  would  have  been  nominated? 

Answer.  We  all  know  that  while  Senator  Sherman  had 
many  friends,  and  that  while  many  thought  he  would  make 
an  excellent  President,  still  there  was  but  little  enthusiasm 
among  his  followers.  Sherman  had  the  respect  of  the 
party,  but  hardly  the  love. 

Question.  In  his  book  the  Senator  expresses  the  opinion 
that  he  was  quite  close  to  the  nomination  in  1888,  when 
Mr.  Quay  was  for  him.  Do  you  think  that  is  so,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  ? 

Answer.  I  think  Mr.  Sherman  had  a  much  better  chance 
in  1888  than  in  1880,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  never  came 
within  hailing  distance  of  success  at  any  time.  He  is  not 
of  the  nature  to  sway  great  bodies  of  men.  He  lacks  the 
power  to  impress  himself  upon  others  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  make  friends  of  enemies  and  devotees  of  friends.  Mr. 
Sherman  has  had  a  remarkable  career,  and  I  think  that  he 
ought  to  be  satisfied  with  what  he  has  achieved. 

Q-uestion.  Mr.  Ingersoll,  what  do  you  think  defeated 
Blaine  for  the  nomination  in  1876? 

Answer.  On  the  first  day  of  the  convention  at  Cincin- 
nati it  was  known  that  Blaine  was  the  leading  candidate. 
All  of  the  enthusiasm  was  for  him.  It  was  soon  known 
that  Conkling,  Bristow  or  Morton  could  not  be  nominated, 
and  that  in  all  probability  Blaine  would  succeed.  The  fact 
that  Blaine  had  been  attacked  by  vertigo,  or  had  suffered 
from  a  stroke  of  apoplexy,  gave  an  argument  to  those  who 
opposed  him,  and  this  was  used  with  great  effect.  After 
Blaine  was  put  in  nomination,  and  before  any  vote  was 
taken,  the  convention   adjourned,  and  during  the  night  a 


554  INTERVIEWS. 

great  deal  of  work  was  done.  The  Michigan  delegation 
was  turned  inside  out  and  the  Blaine  forces  raided  in 
several  States.  Hayes,  the  dark  horse,  suddenly  developed 
speed,  and  the  scattered  forces  rallied  to  his  support.  I 
have  always  thought  that  if  a  ballot  could  have  been  taken 
on  the  day  Blaine  was  put  in  nomination  he  would  have 
succeeded,  and  yet  he  might  have  been  defeated  for  the 
lomination  anyway. 

Blaine  had  the  warmest  friends  and  the  bitterest  enemies 
of  any  man  in  the  party.  People  either  loved  or  hated  him. 
He  had  no  milk-and-water  friends  and  no  milk-and-water 
enemies. 

Question.  If  Blaine  had  been  nominated  at  Cincinnati  in 
1876  would  he  have  made  a  stronger  candidate  than  Hayes 
did? 

Answer.  If  he  had  been  nominated  then,  I  believe  that 
he  would  have  been  triumphantly  elected.  Mr.  Blaine's 
worst  enemies  would  not  have  supported  Tilden,  and 
thousands  of  moderate  Democrats  would  have  given  their 
votes  to  Blaine. 

Question.  Mr.  Ingersoll,  do  you  think  that  Mr.  Blaine 
wanted  the  nomination  in  1884,  when  he  got  it? 

Answer.  In  1883,  Mr.  Blaine  told  me  that  he  did  not 
want  the  nomination.  I  said  to  him:  **  Is  that  honest?" 
He  replied  that  he  did  not  want  it,  that  he  was  tired  of  the 
whole  business.  I  said:  "If  you  do  not  want  it;  if  you 
have  really  reached  that  conclusion,  then  I  think  you  will 
get  it."  He  laughed,  and  again  said  :  "  I  do  not  want  it."  I 
believe  that  he  spoke  exactly  as  he  then  felt. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  defeated  Mr.  Blaine  at  the 
polls  in  1884? 

Answer.  Blaine  was  a  splendid  manager  for  another  maa, 
a  great  natural  organizer,  and  when  acting  for  others  made 
no  mistake ;  but  he  did  not  manage  his  own  campaign  with 
ability.     He    made  a    succession  of   mistakes.     His   suit 


INTERVIEWS.  555 

against  tlie  Indianapolis  editor ;  his  letter  about  the  owner- 
ship of  certain  stocks;  his  reply  to  Burchard  and  the 
preachers,  in  which  he  said  that  history  showed  the  church 
could  get  along  without  the  state,  but  the  state  could  not 
get  along  without  the  church,  and  this  in  reply  to  the 
"Rum,  Romanism  and  Rebellion"  nonsense;  and  last,  but 
not  least,  his  speech  to  the  millionaires  in  New  York — all  of 
these  things  weakened  him.  As  a  matter  of  fact  many 
Catholics  were  going  to  support  Blaine,  but  when  they  saw 
him  fooling  with  the  Protestant  clergy,  and  accepting  the 
speech  of  Burchard,  they  instantly  turned  against  him.  If 
he  had  never  met  Burchard,  1  think  he  would  have  been 
elected.  His  career  was  vSomething  like  that  of  Mr.  Clay ; 
he  was  the  most  popular  man  of  his  party  and  yet 

Question.  How  do  you  account  for  Mr.  Blaine's  action 
in  allowing  his  name  to  go  before  the  convention  at 
Minneapolis  in  1892? 

Answer.  In  1892,  Mr.  Blaine  was  a  sick  man,  almost 
worn  out ;  he  was  not  his  former  self,  and  he  was  influenced 
by  others.  He  seemed  to  have  lost  his  intuition ;  he  was 
misled,  yet  in  spite  of  all  defeats,  no  name  will  create 
among  Republicans  greater  enthusiasm  than  that  of  James 
G.  Blaine.  Millions  are  still  his  devoted,  unselfish  and 
enthusiastic  friends  and  defenders. — The  Globe-Democrat,  s^t-ijoms, 

October  27,  1895. 

REPLY  TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  ENDEAVORERS. 

Question.  How  were  you  affected  by  the  announcement 
that  the  united  prayers  of  the  Salvationists  and  Christian 
Endeavorers  were  to  be  offered  for  your  conversion  ? 

Answer.  The  announcement  did  not  affect  me  to  any 
great  extent.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  people  praying 
for  me  are  sincere  and  that  they  have  a  real  interest  in  my 
welfare.  Of  course,  I  thank  them  one  and  all.  At  the 
same  time  I  can  hardly  account  for  what  they  did.  Cer- 
tainly they  would  not  ask  God  to  convert  me  unless  they 


556  INTERVIEWS. 

thought  the  praj^er  could  be  answered.  And  if  their  God 
can  convert  me  of  course  he  can  convert  everybody.  Then 
the  question  arises  why  does  he  not  do  it.  Why  does  he 
let  millions  go  to  hell  when  he  can  convert  them  all.  Why 
did  he  not  convert  them  all  before  the  flood  and  take  them 
all  to  heaven  instead  of  drowning  them  and  sending  them 
all  to  hell.  Of  course  these  questions  can  be  answered  by 
saying  that  God's  ways  are  not  our  ways.  I  am  greatly 
obliged  to  these  people.  Still,  I  feel  about  the  same,  so 
that  it  would  be  impossible  to  get  up  a  striking  picture  of 
"before  and  after."  It  was  good-natured  on  their  part  to 
pray  for  me,  and  that  act  alone  leads  me  to  believe  that 
there  is  still  hope  for  them.  The  trouble  with  the  Chris- 
tian Endeavorers  is  that  they  don't  give  my  arguments  con- 
sideration. If  they  did  they  would  agree  with  me.  It 
seemed  curious  that  they  would  advise  divine  wisdom  what 
to  do,  or  that  they  would  ask  infinite  mercy  to  treat  me 
with  kindness.  If  there  be  a  God,  of  course  he  knows 
what  ought  to  be  done,  and  will  do  it  without  any  hints 
from  ignorant  human  beings.  Still,  the  Endeavorers  and 
the  Salvation  people  may  know  more  about  God  than  I  do. 
For  all  I  know,  this  God  may  need  a  little  urging.  He 
may  be  powerful  but  a  little  slow ;  intelligent  but  some- 
times a  little  drowsy,  and  it  may  do  good  now  and  then  to 
call  his  attention  to  the  facts.  The  prayers  did  not,  so  far 
as  I  know,  do  me  the  least  injury  or  the  least  good.  I  was 
glad  to  see  that  the  Christians  are  getting  civilized.  A 
few  years  ago  they  would  have  burned  me.  Now  they 
pray  for  me. 

Suppose  God  should  answer  the  prayers  and  convert  me, 
how  would  he  bring  the  conversion  about?  In  the  first 
place,  he  would  have  to  change  my  brain  and  give  me  more 
credulity — that  is,  he  would  be  obliged  to  lessen  my  rea- 
soning power.  Then  I  would  believe  not  only  without 
evidence,  but  in  spite  of  evidence.     All  the  miracles  would 


INTERVIEWS.  557 

appear  perfectly  natural.  It  would  then  seem  as  easy  to 
raise  the  dead  as  to  waken  the  sleeping.  In  addition  to 
this,  God  would  so  change  my  mind  that  I  would  hold  all 
reason  in  contempt  and  put  entire  confidence  in  faith.  I 
would  then  regard  science  as  the  enemy  of  human  happi- 
ness, and  ignorance  as  the  soil  in  which  virtues  grow. 
Then  I  would  throw  away  Darwin  and  Humboldt,  and  relj^ 
on  the  sermons  of  orthodox  preachers.  In  other  words,  I 
would  become  a  little  child  and  amuse  myself  with  a  relig- 
ious rattle  and  a  Gabriel  horn.  Then  I  would  rely  on  a 
man  who  has  been  dead  for  nearl}^  two  thousand  years  to 
secure  me  a  seat  in  Paradise. 

After  conversion,  it  is  not  pretended  that  I  will  be  any 
better  so  far  as  my  actions  are  concerned ;  no  more  charita- 
ble, no  more  honest,  no  more  generous.  The  great  differ- 
ence will  be  that  I  will  believe  more  and  think  less. 

After  all,  the  converted  people  do  not  seem  to  be  better 
than  the  sinners.  I  never  heard  of  a  poor  wretch  clad  in 
rags,  limping  into  a  town  and  asking  for  the  house  of  a 
Christian. 

I  think  that  I  had  better  remain  as  I  am.  I  had  better 
follow  the  light  of  my  reason,  be  true  to  mj^self,  express 
my  honest  thoughts,  and  do  the  little  I  can  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  superstition,  the  little  I  can  for  the  development  of 
the  brain,  for  the  increase  of  intellectual  hospitality  and 
the  happiness  of  my  fellow-beings.     One  world  at  a  time. 

—New  York  Journal^  December  15,  1895. 

SPIRITUALISM. 

There  are  several  good  things  about  the  Spiritualists. 
First,  they  are  not  bigoted ;  second,  they  do  not  believe  in 
salvation  by  faith;  third,  they  don't  expect  to  be  happy 
in  another  world  because  Christ  was  good  in  this ;  fourth, 
the}^  do  not  preach  the  consolation  of  hell ;  fifth,  they  do 
not   believe   in   God   as   an   infinite   monster  :    sixth,   the 


558  INTERVIEWS. 

Spiritualists  believe  in  intellectual  hospitality.  In  these 
respects  they  differ  from  our  Christian  brethren,  and  in 
these  respects  they  are  far  superior  to  the  saints. 

I  think  that  the  Spiritualists  have  done  good.  They 
believe  in  enjoying  themselves — in  having  a  little  pleas- 
ure in  this  world.  They  are  social,  cheerful  and  good- 
natured.  They  are  not  the  slaves  of  a  book.  Their  hands 
and  feet  are  not  tied  with  passages  of  Scripture.  They 
are  not  troubling  themselves  about  getting  forgiveness 
and  settling  their  heavenly  debts  for  a  cent  on  the  dollar. 
Their  belief  does  not  make  them  mean  or  miserable. 

They  do  not  persecute  their  neighbors.  They  ask  no 
one  to  have  faith  or  to  believe  without  evidence.  They 
ask  all  to  investigate,  and  then  to  make  up  their  minds 
from  the  evidence.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  well-edu- 
cated, intelligent  people  are  satisfied  with  the  evidence  and 
firmly  believe  in  the  existence  of  spirits.  For  all  I  know, 
they  may  be  right — but 

Question.  The  Spiritualists  have  indirectly  claimed,  that 
you  were  in  many  respects  almost  one  of  them.  Have 
you  given  them  reason  to  believe  so  ? 

A7iswer.  I  am  not  a  Spiritualist,  and  have  never  pre- 
tended to  be.  The  Spiritualists  believe  in  free  thought,  in 
freedom  of  speech,  and  they  are  willing  to  hear  the  other 
side — willing  to  hear  me.  The  best  thing  about  the  Spirit- 
ualists is  that  they  believe  in  intellectual  hospitality. 

Question.  Is  Spiritualism  a  religion  or  a  truth  ? 

A7iswer.  I  think  that  Spiritualism  may  properly  be 
called  a  religion.  It  deals  with  two  worlds — teaches  the 
duty  of  man  to  his  fellows — the  relation  that  this  life  bears 
to  the  next.  It  claims  to  be  founded  on  facts.  It  insists 
that  the  "  dead  "  converse  with  the  living,  and  that  infor- 
mation is  received  from  those  who  once  lived  in  this  world. 
Of  the  truth  of  these  claims  I  have  no  sufficient  evidence. 

Question.  Are  all  mediums  impostors  ? 


INTERVIEWS.  559 

Answer.  I  will  not  say  that  all  mediums  are  impostors, 
because  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  believe  that  these  medi- 
ums get  any  information  or  help  from  "  spirits."  I  know 
that  for  thousands  of  years  people  have  believed  in  medi- 
ums— in  Spiritualism.  A  spirit  in  the  form  of  a  man  ap- 
peared to  Samson's   mother,  and  afterward  to  his  father. 

Spirits,  or  angels,  called  on  Abraham.  The  witch  of 
Endor  raised  the  ghost  of  Samuel.  An  angel  appeared 
with  three  men  in  the  furnace.  The  handwriting  on  the 
wall  was  done  by  a  spirit.  A  spirit  appeared  to  Joseph  in 
a  dream,  to  the  wise  men  and  to  Joseph  again. 

So  a  spirit,  an  angel  or  a  god  spoke  to  Saul,  and  the 
same  happened  to  Mary  Magdalene. 

The  religious  literature  of  the  world  is  filled  with  such 
things.  Take  Spiritualism  from  Christianity  and  the  whole 
edifice  crumbles.  All  religions,  so  far  as  I  know,  are  based 
on  Spiritualism — on  communications  received  from  angels, 
from  spirits. 

I  do  not  say  that  all  the  mediums,  ancient  and  modern, 
were,  and  are,  impostors — but  I  do  think  that  all  the  honest 
ones  were,  and  are,  mistaken.  I  do  not  believe  that  man 
has  ever  received  any  communication  from  angels,  spirits 
or  gods.  No  whisper,  as  I  believe,  has  ever  come  from  any 
other  world.  The  lips  of  the  dead  are  always  closed. 
From  the  grave  there  has  come  no  voice.  For  thousands 
of  years  people  have  been  questioning  the  dead.  They 
have  tried  to  catch  the  whisper  of  a  vanished  voice.  Many 
say  that  they  have  succeeded,     I  do  not  know. 

Question.  What  is  the  explanation  of  the  startling  knowl- 
edge displayed  by  some  so-called  "  mediums  "  of  the  his- 
tory and  personal  affairs  of  people  who  consult  them  ?  Is 
there  any  such  thing  as  mind-reading  or  thought-trans- 
ference ? 

Answer.  In  a  very  general  way,  I  suppose  that  one  per- 
son may  read  the  thought  of  another — not  definitely,  but 


500  INTERVIEWS. 

by  the  expression  of  the  face,  by  the  attitude  of  the  body, 
some  idea  may  be  obtained  as  to  what  a  person  thinks, 
what  he  intends.  So  thought  may  be  transferred  by  look 
or  language,  but  not  simply  by  will.  Everything  that  is, 
is  natural.  Our  ignorance  is  the  soil  in  which  mystery 
grows.  I  do  not  believe  that  thoughts  are  things  that  can 
be  seen  or  touched.  Each  mind  lives  in  a  world  of  its 
own,  a  world  that  no  other  mind  can  enter.  Minds,  like 
ships  at  sea,  give  signs  and  signals  to  each  other,  but  they 
do  not  exchange  captains. 

Questio7i.  Is  there  any  such  thing  as  telepathy  ?  What 
is  the  explanation  of  the  stories  of  mental  impression  re- 
ceived at  long  distances  ? 

Answer.  There  are  curious  coincidences.  People  some- 
times happen  to  think  of  something  that  is  taking  place  at 
a  great  distance.  The  stories  about  these  happenings  are 
not  very  well  authenticated,  and  seem  never  to  have  been 
of  the  least  use  to  anybody. 

Question.  Can  these  phenomena  be  considered  aside  from 
any  connection  with,  or  form  of,  superstition  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  mistake,  emotion,  nervousness, 
hysteria,  dreams,  love  of  the  wonderful,  dishonesty, 
ignorance,  grief  and  the  longing  for  immortality — the  de- 
sire to  meet  the  loved  and  lost,  the  horror  of  endless  death 
— account  for  these  phenomena.  People  often  mistake 
their  dreams  for  realities — often  think  that  their  thoughts 
have  "  happened."  They  live  in  a  mental  mist,  a  mirage. 
The  boundary  between  the  actual  and  the  imagined  be- 
comes faint,  wavering  and  obscure.  They  mistake  clouds 
for  mountains.  The  real  and  the  unreal  mix  and  mingle 
until  the  impossible  become*  common,  and  the  natural 
absurd. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  any  sane  man  ever  had  a 
vision? 

Answer.   Of  course,  the  sane  and   insane  have  visions^ 


INTERVIEWS.  561 

dreams.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man,  sane  or  insane, 
was  ever  visited  by  an  angel  or  spirit,  or  ever  received  any 
information  from  the  dead. 

Questio7i.  Setting  aside  from  consideration  the  so-called 
physical  manifestation  of  the  mediums,  has  Spiritualism 
offered  any  proof  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  ? 

Answer.  Of  course  Spiritualism  offers  what  it  calls  proof 
of  immortality.  That  is  its  principal  business.  Thousands 
and  thousands  of  good,  honest,  intelligent  people  think  the 
proof  sufficient.  They  receive  what  they  believe  to  be 
messages  from  the  departed,  and  now  and  then  the  spirits 
assume  their  old  forms — including  garments — and  pass 
through  walls  and  doors  as  light  passes  through  glass.  Do 
these  things  really  happen  ?  If  the  spirits  of  the  dead  do 
return,  then  the  fact  of  another  life  is  established.  It  all 
depends  on  the  evidence.  Our  senses  are  easily  deceived, 
and  some  people  have  more  confidence  in  their  reason  than 
in  their  senses. 

Question.  Do  you  not  believe  that  such  a  man  as  Robert 
Dale  Owen  was  sincere?  What  was  the  real  state  of  mind 
of  the  author  of  "  Footfalls  on  the  Boundaries  of  Another 
World"? 

Answer.  Without  the  slightest  doubt,  Robert  Dale  Owen 
was  sincere.  He  was  one  of  the  best  of  men.  His  father 
labored  all  his  life  for  the  good  of  others.  Robert  Owen, 
the  father,  had  a  debate,  in  Cincinnati,  with  the  Rev.  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  the  founder  of  the  Campbellite  Church. 
Campbell  was  no  match  for  Owen,  and  yet  the  audience 
was  almost  unanimously  against  Owen. 

Robert  Dale  Owen  was  an  intelligent,  thoughtful,  honest 
man.  He  was  deceived  by  several  mediums,  but  remained 
a  believer.  He  wanted  Spiritualism  to  be  true.  He 
hungered  and  thirsted  for  another  life.  He  explainer 
everything  that  was  mysterious  or  curious  by  assumin^^ 
the  interference  of  spirits.     He  was  a  good  man,  but  a 


562  INTERVIEWS. 

poor    iuvestigator.       He    thought    that    people   were    all 
honest.  ^ 

OuesHo7i.  What  do  you  understand  the  Spiritualist  means  f 
when  he  claims  that  the  soul  goes  to  the  "Summer  land,"  ;' 
and  there  continues  to  work  and  evolute  to  higher  planes  ? 

Answer.  No  one  pretends  to  know  where  "heaven"  is. 
The  celestial  realm  is  the  blessed  somewhere  in  the  un- 
known nowhere.  So  far  as  I  know,  the  "  Summer  land  " 
has  no  metes  and  bounds,  and  no  one  pretends  to  know 
exactly  or  inexactly  where  it  is.  After  all,  the  "Summer 
land  "  is  a  hope — a  wish.  Spiritualists  believe  that  a  soul 
leaving  this  world  passes  into  another,  or  into  another 
state,  and  continues  to  grow  in  intelligence  and  virtue, 
if  it  so  desires. 

Spiritualists  claim  to  prove  that  there  is  another  life. 
Christians  believe  this,  but  their  witnesses  have  been  dead 
for  many  centuries.  They  take  the  "  hearsay "  of  legend 
and  ancient  gossip ;  but  Spiritualists  claim  to  have  living 
witnesses;  witnesses  that  can  talk,  make  music;  that  can 
take  to  themselves  bodies  and  shake  hands  with  the  people 
they  knew  before  they  passed  to  the  "other  shore." 

Question.  Has  Spiritualism,  through  its  mediums,  ever 
told  the  world  anything  useful,  or  added  to  the  store  of 
the  world's  knowledge,  or  relieved  its  burdens? 

Answer.  I  do  not  know  that  any  medium  has  added  to 
the  useful  knowledge  of  the  world,  unless  mediums  have 
given  evidence  of  another  life.  Mediums  have  told  us 
nothing  about  astronomy,  geology  or  history,  have  made 
no  discoveries,  no  inventions,  and  have  enriched  no  art. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  every  religion. 

All  the  orthodox  churches  believe  in  Spiritualism. 
Every  now  and  then  the  Virgin  appears  to  some  peasant, 
and  in  the  old  days  the  darkness  was  filled  with  evil 
spirits.  Christ  was  a  Spiritualist,  and  his  principal  busi- 
ness was  the  casting  out  of  devils.     All  of  his  disciples,  all 


INTERVIEWS.  563 

of  the  church  fathers,  all  of  the  saints  were  believers  in 
Spiritualism  of  the  lowest  and  most  ignorant  type.  During 
the  Middle  Ages  people  changed  themselves,  with  the  aid 
of  spirits,  into  animals.  They  became  wolves,  dogs,  cats 
and  donkeys.  In  those  days  all  the  witches  and  wizards 
were  mediums.  So  animals  were  sometimes  taken  posses- 
sion of  by  spirits,  the  same  as  Balaam's  donkey  and 
Christ's  swine.    Nothing  was  too  absurd  for  the  Christians. 

Question.  Has  not  Spiritualism  added  to  the  world's  store 
of  hope?  And  in  what  w^ay  has  not  Spiritualism  done 
good? 

Answer.  The  mother  holding  in  her  arms  her  dead  child, 
believing  that  the  babe  has  simply  passed  to  another  life, 
does  not  weep  as  bitterly  as  though  she  thought  that  death 
was  the  eternal  end.  A  belief  in  Spiritualism  must  be  a 
consolation.  You  see,  the  Spiritualists  do  not  believe  in 
eternal  pain,  and  consequently  a  belief  in  immortality  does 
not  fill  their  hearts  with  fear. 

Christianity  makes  eternal  life  an  infinite  horror,  and 
casts  the  glare  of  hell  on  almost  every  grave. 

The  Spiritualists  appear  to  be  happy  in  their  belief.  I 
have  never  known  a  happy  orthodox  Christian. 

It  is  natural  to  shun  death,  natural  to  desire  eternal  life. 
With  all  my  heart  I  hope  for  everlasting  life  and  joy — a 
life  without  failures,  without  crimes  and  tears. 

If  immortality  could  be  established,  the  river  of  life  would 
overflow  with  happiness.  The  faces  of  prisoners,  of 
slaves,  of  the  deserted,  of  the  diseased  and  starving  would 
be  radiant  with  smiles,  and  the  dull  eyes  of  despair  would 
glow  with  light. 

If  it  could  be  established. 

Let  us  hope. —  The  journal.  New  York,  July  28, 1896. 


A  LITTLE  OF   EVERYTHING. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  position  taken  by 
the  United  States  in  the  Venezuelan  dispute  ?  How  should 
the  dispute  be  settled  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  that  we  have  anj^  interest  in  the 
dispute  between  Venezuela  and  England.  It  was  and  is 
none  of  our  business.  The  Monroe  doctrine  was  not  and 
is  not  in  any  wa}^  involved.  Mr.  Cleveland  made  a  mis- 
take and  so  did  Congress. 

Question.  What  should  be  the  attitude  of  the  church  to- 
ward the  stage  ? 

Answer.  It  should  be,  what  it  always  has  been,  against 
it.  If  the  orthodox  churches  are  right,  then  the  stage  is 
wrong.  The  stage  makes  people  forget  hell ;  and  this  puts 
their  souls  in  peril.  There  will  be  forever  a  conflict  be- 
tween Shakespeare  and  the  Bible. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  the  new  woman  ? 

Answer.  I  like  her. 

Question.  Where  rests  the  responsibility  for  the  Armenian 
atrocities  ? 

Answer.  Religion  is  the  cause  of  the  hatred  and  blood- 
shed. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  international  marriages, 
as  between  titled  foreigners  and  American  heiresses  ? 

Answer.  My  opinion  is  the  same  as  is  entertained  hy  the 
American  girl  after  the  marriages.     It  is  a  great  mistake. 

Question.  What  do  3^ou  think  of  England's  Poet  Laureate, 
Alfred  Austin  ? 

Answer.  I  have  only  read  a  few  of  his  lines  and  they 
were  not  poetic.     The  office  of   Poet  Laureate  should  be 

(564) 


INTERVIEWS.  565 

abolished.  Men  cannot  write  poems  to  order  as  they  could 
deliver  cabbages  or  beer.  By  poems  I  do  not  mean  jingles 
of  words.     I  mean  great  thoughts  clothed  in  splendor. 

Question.  What  is  your  estimate  of  Susan  B.  Anthony  ? 

Answer.  Miss  Anthony  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
women  in  the  world.  She  has  the  enthusiasm  of  3^outh  and 
spring,  the  courage  and  sincerity  of  a  martyr.  She  is  as 
reliable  as  the  attraction  of  gravitation.  She  is  absolutely 
true  to  her  convictions,  intellectually  honest,  logical,  candid 
and  infinitely  persistent.  No  human  being  has  done  more 
for  woman  than  Miss  x\nthon3^  She  has  won  the  respect 
and  admiration  of  the  best  people  on  the  earth.  And  so  I 
say  :     Good  luck  and  long  life  to  Susan  B.  Anthony. 

Qiiestion.  Which  did  more  for  his  country,  George 
Washington  or  Abraham  Lincoln  ? 

Answer.  In  my  judgment,  Lincoln  was  the  greatest  man 
ever  President.  I  put  him  above  Washington  and  Jeffer- 
son. Ke  had  the  genius  of  goodness  ;  and  he  was  one  of 
the  wisest  and  shrewdest  of  men.  Lincoln  towers  above 
them  all. 

Question.  What  gave  rise  to  the  report  that  you  had  been 
converted — did  you  go  to  church  somewhere  ? 

A?iswer.  I  visited  the  ''People's  Church"  in  Kalamazoo, 
Michigan.  This  church  has  no  creed.  The  object  is  to 
make  people  happy  in  this  world.  Miss  Bartlett  is  the 
pastor.  She  is  a  remarkable  woman  and  is  devoting  her 
life  to  a  good  work.  I  liked  her  church  and  said  so.  This 
is  all. 

Questioji.  Are  there  not  some  human  natures  so  morally 
weak  or  diseased  that  they  cannot  keep  from  sin  withouf 
the  aid  of  some  sort  of  religion  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  believe  that  orthodox  religion  helps 
anybody  to  be  just,  generous  or  honest.  Superstition  is 
not  the  soil  in  which  goodness  grows.  Falsehood  is  poor 
medicine. 


556  INTERVIEWS. 

Question.  Would  you  consent  to  live  in  any  but  a  Chris- 
tian community  ?     If  you  would,  please  name  one. 

Answer.  I  would  not  live  in  a  community  where  all  were 
orthodox  Christians.  Such  a  communit3^  would  be  a 
penitentiary.  I  would  rather  dwell  in  Central  Africa.  If 
I  could  have  my  choice  I  would  rather  live  among  people 
who  were  free,  who  sought  for  truth  and  lived  according  to 
reason.     Sometime  there  will  be  such  a  community. 

Question.  Is  the  noun  "  United  States  "  singular  or  plural, 
as  you  use  English  ? 

Answer.  I  use  it  in  the  singular. 

Question.  Have  you  read  Nordau's  "  Degeneracy "  ?  If 
so,  what  do  you  think  of  it  ? 

Answer.  I  think  it  substantially  insane. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Bishop  Doane's  advocacy 
of  free  rum  as  a  solution  of  the  liquor  problem  ? 

A?iswer.  I  am  a  believer  in  liberty.  All  the  temperance 
legislation,  all  the  temperance  societies,  all  the  agitation, 
all  these  things  have  done  no  good. 

Question.  Do  you  agree  with  Mr.  Carnegie  that  a  college 
education  is  of  little  or  no  practical  value  to  a  man  ? 

Answer.  A  man  must  have  education.  It  makes  no  dif- 
ference where  or  how  he  gets  it.  To  study  the  dead 
languages  is  time  wasted  so  far  as  success  in  business  is 
concerned.  Most  of  the  colleges  in  this  country  are  poor 
because  controlled  b}^  theologians. 

Question.  What  suggestion  would  you  make  for  the  im- 
provement of  the  newspapers  of  this  country  ? 

Answer.  Every  article  in  a  newspaper  should  be  signed 
by  the  writer.  And  all  writers  should  do  their  best  to  tell 
the  exact  facts. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Niagara  Falls  ? 

Answer.  It  is  a  dangerous  place.  Those  great  rushing 
waters — there  is  nothing  attractive  to  me  in  them.  There 
is  so  much  noise ;  so  much  tumult.     It  is  simply  a  mighty 


INTERVIEWS.  567 

force  of  nature — one  of  those  tremendous  powers  that  is  to  be 
feared  for  its  danger.  What  I  like  in  nature  is  a  cultivated 
field,  where  men  can  work  in  the  free  open  air,  where  there 
is  quiet  and  repose — no  turmoil,  no  strife,  no  tumult,  no 
fearful  roar  or  struggle  for  mastery.  I  do  not  like  the 
crowded,  stuffy  workshop,  where  life  is  slavery  and  drudgery. 
Give  me  the  calm,  cultivated  land  of  waving  grain,  of 
flowers,  of  happiness. 

Question.  What  is  worse  than  death  ? 

Answer.  Oh,  a  great  many  things.  To  be  dishonored. 
To  be  worthless.  To  feel  that  you  are  a  failure.  To  be  in- 
sane.    To  be  constantly  afraid  of  the  future.     To  lose  the 

ones  you  love.  —  The  Herald^  Rochester,  New  York,  February  25,  1896. 

IS  LIFE  WORTH  LIVING— CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  AND 
POLITICS. 

Questicnu  With  all  3^our  experiences,  the  trials,  the  re- 
sponsibilities, the  disappointments,  the  heartburnings, 
Colonel,  is  life  worth  living  ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  can  only  answer  for  myself.  I  like  to 
be  alive,  to  breathe  the  air,  to  look  at  the  landscape,  the 
clouds  and  stars,  to  repeat  old  poems,  to  look  at  pictures 
and  statues,  to  hear  music,  the  voices  of  the  ones  I  love.  I 
enjoy  eating  and  smoking.  I  like  good  cold  water.  I  like 
to  talk  with  my  wife,  my  girls,  my  grandchildren.  I  like 
to  sleep  and  to  dream."  Yes,  you  can  say  that  life,  to  me,  is 
worth  living. 

Question.  Colonel,  did  you  ever  kill  any  game  ? 

Answer.  When  I  was  a  boy  I  killed  two  ducks,  and  it 
hurt  me  as  much  as  anything  I  ever  did.  No,  I  would  not 
kill  any  living  creature.  I  am  sometimes  tempted  to  kill  a 
mosquito  on  my  hand,  but  I  stop  and  think  what  a  wonder- 
ful constTtieticn  it  has,  and  shoo  it  away. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  political  parties.  ColoneJ? 

Anss£f^>  Ja  %  coBJitr^  where  the  sovereignty  is  divide: 


568  INTERVIEWS. 

among  the  people,  that  is  to  say,  among  the  men,  in  order 
to  accomplish  anything,  many  must  unite,  and  I  believe  in 
joining  the  party  that  is  going  the  nearest  your  way.  I  do 
not  believe  in  being  the  slave  or  serf  or  servant  of  a  party. 
Go  with  it  if  it  is  going  your  road,  and  when  the  road  forks, 
take  the  one  that  leads  to  the  place  you  wish  to  visit,  no 
matter  whether  the  party  goes  that  way  or  not.  I  do  not 
believe  in  belonging  to  a  party  or  being  the  property  of  any 
organization.  I  do  not  believe  in  giving  a  mortgage  on 
yourself  or  a  deed  of  trust  for  any  purpose  whatever.  It  is 
better  to  be  free  and  vote  wrong  than  to  be  a  slave  and  vote 
right.  I  believe  in  taking  the  chances.  At  the  same  time, 
as  long  as  a  party  is  going  my  way,  I  believe  in  placing 
that  party  above  particular  persons,  and  if  that  party  nom- 
inates a  man  that  I  despise,  I  will  vote  for  him  if  he  is  going 
my  way.  I  would  rather  have  a  bad  man  belonging  to  my 
party  in  place,  than  a  good  man  belonging  to  the  other, 
provided  my  man  believes  in  my  principles,  and  to  that 
extent  I  believe  in  party  loyalty. 

Neither  do  I  join  in  the  general  hue  and  cry  against 
bosses.  There  has  always  got  to  be  a  leader,  even  in  a 
flock  of  wild  geese.  If  anything  is  to  be  accomplished,  no 
matter  what,  somebody  takes  the  lead  and  the  others  allow 
him  to  go  on.  In  that  way  political  bosses  are  made,  and 
when  you  hear  a  man  howling  against  bosses  at  the  top  of 
his  lungs,  distending  his  cheeks  to  the  bursting  point,  you 
may  know  that  he  has  ambition  to  become  a  boss. 

I  do  not  belong  to  the  Republican  party,  but  I  have  been 
going  with  it,  and  when  it  goes  wrong  I  shall  quit,  unless 
the  other  is  worse.  There  is  no  office,  no  place,  that  I 
want,  and  as  it  does  not  cost  anything  to  be  right,  I  think 
it  better  to  be  that  way. 

Question.  What  is  your  idea  of  Christian  Science? 

Amwer.  I  think  it  is  superstition,  pure  and  unadulter- 
ated.    I  think  that  soda  will  cure  a  sour  stomach  better 


INTERVIEWS.  569 

than  thinking.  In  my  judgment,  quinine  is  abetter  touic 
than  meditation.  Of  course  cheerfulness  is  good  and  de- 
pression bad,  but  if  you  can  absolutely  control  the  body 
and  all  its  functions  by  thought,  what  is  the  use  of  buying 
coal  ?  Let  the  mercury  go  down  and  keep  yourself  hot  by 
thinking.  What  is  the  use  of  wasting  money  for  food? 
Fill  your  stomach  with  think.  According  to  these  Chris- 
tian Science  people  all  that  really  exists  is  an  illusion, 
and  the  only  realities  are  the  things  that  do  not  exist. 
They  are  like  the  old  fellow  in  India  who  said  that  all 
things  were  illusions.  One  day  he  was  speaking  to  a 
crowd  on  his  favorite  hobby.  Just  as  he  said  "all  is  illu- 
sion" a  fellow  on  an  elephant  rode  toward  hin^.  The 
elephant  raised  his  trunk  as  though  to  strike,  thereupon 
the  speaker  ran  away.  Then  the  crowd  laughed.  In  a 
few  moments  the  speaker  returned.  The  people  shouted : 
"If  all  is  illusion,  what  made  you  run  away?"  The 
speaker  replied  :  "  My  poor  friends,  I  said  all  is  illusion. 
I  say  so  still.  There  was  no  elephant.  I  did  not  run 
away.  You  did  not  laugh,  and  I  am  not  explaining  now. 
All  is  illusion." 

That  man  must  have  been  a  Christian  Scientist. — The  inter- 

Ocean^  Chicago,  November,  1897. 

VIVISECTION. 

Question.  Why  are  you  so  utterly  opposed  to  vivisection  ? 

Answer.  Because,  as  it  is  generally  practiced,  it  is  an 
unspeakable  cruelty.  Because  it  hardens  the  hearts  and 
demoralizes  those  who  inflict  useless  and  terrible  pains  on 
the  bound  and  helpless.  If  these  vivisectionists  would  give 
chloroform  or  ether  to  the  animals  they  dissect;  if  they 
would  render  them  insensible  to  pain,  and  if,  by  cutting  up 
these  animals,  they  could  learn  anything  worth  knowing, 
no  one  would  seriously  object. 

The  trouble  is  that  these  doctors,  these  students,  these 


570  INTERVIEWS. 

professors,  these  amateurs,  do  not  give  angesthetics.  They 
insist  that  to  render  the  animal  insensible  does  away  with 
the  value  of  the  experiment.  They  care  nothing  for  the 
pain  they  inflict.  They  are  so  eager  to  find  some  fact  that 
will  be  of  benefit  to  the  human  race,  that  they  are  utterly 
careless  of  the  agony  endured. 

Now,  what  I  say  is  that  no  decent  man,  no  gentleman,  no 
civilized  person,  would  vivisect  an  animal  without  first 
having  rendered  that  animal  insensible  to  pain.  The 
doctor,  the  scientist,  who  puts  his  knives,  forceps,  chisels 
and  saws  into  the  flesh,  bones  and  nerves  of  an  animal 
without  having  used  an  anaesthetic,  is  a  savage,  a  pitiless, 
heartless  monster.  When  he  says  he  does  this  for  the  good 
of  man,  because  he  wishes  to  do  good,  he  says  what  is  not 
true.  No  such  man  wants  to  do  good  ;  he  commits  the 
crime  for  his  own  benefit  and  because  he  wishes  to  gratify 
an  insane  curiosity  or  to  gain  a  reputation  among  like 
savageSo 

These  scientists  now  insist  that  they  have  done  some 
good.  They  do  not  tell  exactly  what  they  have  done. 
The  claim  is  general  in  its  character — not  specific.  If  they 
have  done  good,  could  they  not  have  done  just  as  much  if 
they  had  used  anaesthetics  ?  Good  is  not  the  child  of 
cruelty. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  the  vivisectionists  do  their 
.work  without  anaesthetics  ?  Do  they  not,  as  a  rule,  give 
something  to  deaden  pain  ? 

Answer.  Here  is  where  the  trouble  is.  Now  and  then  one 
uses  chloroform,  but  the  great  majority  do  not.  They 
claim  that  it  interferes  with  the  value  of  the  experiment, 
and,  as  I  said  before,  they  object  to  the  expense.  Why 
should  they  care  for  what  the  animals  suffer  ?  They  inflict 
the  most  horrible  and  useless  pain,  and  they  try  the  silliest 
experiments — experiments  of  no  possible  use  or  advantage. 

For  instance :  They  flay  a  dog  to  see  how  long  he  can 


INTERVIEWS.  571 

live  without  his  skin.  Is  this  trifling  experiment  of  any 
importance  ?  Suppose  the  dog  can  live  a  week  or  a  month 
or  a  year,  what  then  ?  What  must  the  real  character  of 
the  scientific  wretch  be  who  would  try  an  experiment  like 
this?     Is  such  a  man  seeking  the  good  of  his  fellow-men  ? 

So,  these  scientists  starve  animals  until  they  slowly  die  ; 
watch  them  from  day  to  day  as  life  recedes  from  the 
extremities,  and  watch  them  until  the  final  surrender,  to  see 
how  long  the  heart  will  flutter  without  food;  without 
water.  They  keep  a  diary  of  their  sufferings,  of  their 
whinings  and  moanings,  of  their  insanity.  And  this  diary 
is  published  and  read  with  joy  and  eagerness  by  other 
scientists  in  like  experiments.  Of  what  possible  use  is  it  to 
know  how  long  a  dog  or  a  horse  can  live  without  food  ? 

So,  they  take  animals,  dogs  and  horses,  cut  through  the 
flesh  with  the  knife,  remove  some  of  the  back  bone  with  the 
chisel,  then  divide  the  spinal  marrow,  then  touch  it  with 
red  hot  wires  for  the  purpose  of  finding,  as  they  say,  the 
connection  of  nerves;  and  the  animal,  thus  vivisected,  is 
left  to  die. 

A  good  man  will  not  voluntarily  inflict  pain.  He  will 
see  that  his  horse  has  food,  if  he  can  procure  it,  and  if  he 
cannot  procure  the  food,  he  will  end  the  sufferings  of  the 
animal  in  the  best  and  easiest  way.  So,  the  good  man 
would  rather  remain  in  ignorance  as  to  how  pain  is  trans- 
mitted than  to  cut  open  the  body  of  a  living  animal,  divide 
the  marrow  and  torture  the  nerves  with  red  hot  iron.  Of 
what  use  can  it  be  to  take  a  dog,  tie  him  down  and  cut  out 
one  of  his  kidneys  to  see  if  he  can  live  with  the  other  ? 

These  horrors  are  perpetrated  only  by  the  cruel  and  the 
heartless — so  cruel  and  so  heartless  that  they  are  utterly 
unfit  to  be  trusted  with  a  human  life.  They  innoculate 
animals  with  a  virus  of  disease;  they  put  poison  in  their 
eyes  until  rottenness  destroys  the  sight ;  until  the  poor 
brutes  become  insane.     They  give  them  a  disease  that  re- 


572  INTERVIEWS. 

sembles  hydrophobia,  that  is  accompanied  by  the  most 
frightful  convulsions  and  spasms.  The}^  put  them  in  ovens 
to  see  what  degree  of  heat  it  is  that  kills.  They  also  try 
the  effect  of  cold;  they  slowly  drown  them;  they  poison 
them  with  the  venom  of  snakes  ;  they  force  foreign  sub- 
stances into  their  blood,  and,  by  inoculation,  into  their  eyes; 
and  then  watch  and  record  their  agonies ;  their  sufferings. 

Question.  Don't  you  think  that  some  good  has  been  ac- 
complished, some  valuable  information  obtained,  by  vivi- 
section ? 

Answer.  I  don't  think  any  valuable  information  has  been 
obtained  by  the  vivisection  of  animals  without  chloroform 
that  could  not  have  been  obtained  with  chloroform.  And 
to  answer  the  question  broadly  as  to  whether  any  good 
has  been  accomplished  by  vivisection,  I  say  no. 

According  to  the  best  information  that  I  can  obtain,  the 
vivisectors  have  hindered  instead  of  helped.  Lawson  Tait, 
who  stands  at  the  head  of  his  profession  in  England,  the 
best  surgeon  in  Great  Britain,  says  that  all  this  cutting  and 
roasting  and  freezing  and  torturing  of  animals  has  done 
harm  instead  of  good.  He  says  publicly  that  the  vivi- 
sectors have  hindered  the  progress  of  surgery.  He  de- 
clares that  they  have  not  only  done  no  good,  but  asserts 
that  they  have  done  only  harm.  The  same  views  according 
to  Doctor  Tait,  are  entertained  by  Bell,  Syme  and  Fur- 
gusson. 

Many  have  spoken  of  Darwin  as  though  he  were  a  vivi- 
sector.  This  is  not  true.  All  that  has  been  accomplished 
by  these  torturers  of  dumb  and  helpless  animals  amounts  to 
nothing.  We  have  obtained  from  these  gentlemen  Koch's 
cure  for  consumption,  Pasteur's  factory  of  hydrophobia  and 
Brown-Sequard's  elixir  of  life.  These  three  failures,  gigan- 
tic, absurd,  ludicrous,  are  the  great  accomplishments  of 
vivisection. 

Surgery  has  advanced,  not  b}^  the  heartless  tormentors  of 


INTERVIEWS.  573 

animals,  but  b}^  the  use  of  anaesthetics — that  is  to  say, 
chloroform,  ether  and  cocaine.  The  cruel  wretches,  the 
scientific  assassins,  have  accomplished  nothing.  Hundreds 
of  thousands  of  animals  have  suffered  every  pain  that 
nerves  can  feel,  and  all  for  nothing — nothing  except  to 
harden  the  heart  and  to  make  criminals  of  men. 

They  have  not  given  anaesthetics  to  these  animals,  but 
they  have  been  guilty  of  the  last  step  in  cruelty.  They 
have  given  curare,  a  drug  that  attacks  the  centres  of  motion, 
that  makes  it  impossible  for  the  animal  to  move,  so  that 
when  under  its  influence,  no  matter  what  the  pain  may  be, 
the  animal  lies  still.  This  curare  not  only  destroys  the 
power  of  motion,  but  increases  the  sensitiveness  of  the 
nerves.  To  give  this  drug  and  then  to  dissect  the  living 
animal  is  the  extreme  of  cruelty.  Beyond  this,  heartless- 
ness  cannot  go. 

Question.  Do  you  know  that  you  have  been  greatly  criti- 
cised for  what  you  have  said  on  this  subject? 

Answer.  Yes ;  I  have  read  many  criticisms ;  but  what  of 
that.  It  is  impossible  for  the  ingenuity  of  man  to  say 
anything  in  defence  of  cruelty — of  heartlessness.  So,  it  is 
impossible  for  the  defenders  of  vivisection  to  show  any  good 
that  has  been  accomplished  without  the  use  of  anaesthet- 
ics. The  chemist  ought  to  be  able  to  determine  what  is 
and  what  is  not  poison.  There  is  no  need  of  torturing  the 
animals.  So,  this  giving  to  animals  diseases  is  of  no  im- 
portance to  man — not  the  slightest ;  and  nothing  has  been 
discovered  in  bacteriology  so  far  that  has  been  of  use  or 
that  is  of  benefit. 

Personally,  I  admit  that  all  have  the  right  to  criticise  ; 
and  my  answer  to  the  critics  is,  that  they  do  not  know  the 
facts ;  or,  knowing  them,  they  are  interested  in  preventing 
a  knowledge  of  these  facts  coming  to  the  public.  Vivi- 
section should  be  controlled  by  law.  No  animal  should 
be  allowed  to  be  tortured.     And  to  cut  up  a  living  animal 


574  INTERVIEWS. 

not  under  the  influence  of  chloroform  or  ether,  should  be  a 
penitentiary  offence. 

A  perfect  reply  to  all  the  critics  who  insist  that  great 
good  has  been  done  is  to  repeat  the  three  names — Koch, 
Pasteur  and  Brown-Sequard. 

The  foundation  of  civilization  is  not  cruelty ;  it  is  justice, 

generosity,  mercy. — Evening  Telegram,  New  York,  September  30,  1893. 

DIVORCE. 

Question.  The  Herald  would  like  to  have  you  give  your 
ideas  on  divorce.  On  last  Sunday  in  your  lecture  you  said 
a  few  words  on  the  subject,  but  only  a  few.  Do  you  think 
the  laws  governing  divorce  ought  to  be  changed  ? 

Answer.  We  obtained  our  ideas  about  divorce  from  the 
Hebrews — from  the  New  Testament  and  the  church.  In 
the  Old  Testament  woman  is  not  considered  of  much  im- 
portance.    The  wife  was  the  property  of  the  husband. 

'*  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  ox  or  his  wife." 
In  this  commandment  the  wife  is  put  on  an  equality  with 
other  property,  so  under  certain  conditions  the  husband 
could  put  away  his  wife,  but  the  wife  could  not  put  away 
her  husband. 

In  the  New  Testament  there  is  little  in  favor  of  mar- 
riage, and  really  nothing  as  to  the  rights  of  wives.  Christ 
said  nothing  in  favor  of  marriage,  and  never  married.  So 
far  as  I  know,  none  of  the  apostles  had  families.  St.  Paul 
was  opposed  to  marriage,  and  allowed  it  only  as  a  choice  of 
evils.  In  those  days  it  was  imagined  by  the  Christians  that 
the  world  was  about  to  be  purified  by  fire,  and  that  they 
would  be  changed  into  angels. 

The  early  Christians  were  opposed  to  marriage,  and  the 
"fathers"  looked  upon  woman  as  the  source  of  all  evil. 
They  did  not  believe  in  divorces.  They  thought  that  if 
people  loved  each  other  better  than  they  did  God,  and  got 


INTERVIEWS.  575 

married,  they  ought  to  be  held  to  the  bargain,  no  matter 
what  happened. 

These  "fathers"  were,  for  the  most  part,  ignorant  and 
hateful  savages,  and  had  no  more  ideas  of  right  and  wrong 
than  wild  beasts. 

The  church  insisted  that  marriage  was  a  sacrament,  and 
that  God,  in  some  mysterious  way,  joined  husband  and  wife 
in  marriage — that  he  was  one  of  the  parties  to  the  contract, 
and  that  only  death  could  end  it. 

Of  course,  this  supernatural  view  of  marriage  is  perfectly 
absurd.  If  there  be  a  God,  there  certainly  have  been  mar- 
riages that  he  did  not  approve,  and  certain  it  is  that  God 
can  have  no  interest  in  keeping  husbands  and  wives  to* 
gether  who  never  should  have  married. 

Some  of  the  preachers  insist  that  God  instituted  marriage 
in  the  Garden  of  Eden.  We  now  know  that  there  was  no 
Garden  of  Eden,  and  that  woman  was  not  made  from  the 
first  man's  rib.  Nobody  with  any  real  sense  believes  this 
now.  The  institution  of  marriage  was  not  established  by 
Jehovah.  Neither  was  it  established  by  Christ,  nor  any  of 
his  apostles. 

In  considering  the  question  of  divorce,  the  supernatural 
should  be  discarded.  We  should  take  into  consideration 
only  the  effect  upon  human  beings.  The  gods  should  be 
allowed  to  take  care  of  themselves. 

Is  it  to  the  interest  of  a  husband  and  wife  to  live  to- 
gether after  love  has  perished  and  when  they  hate  each 
other  ?  Will  this  add  to  their  happiness  ?  Should  a  woman 
be  compelled  to  remain  the  wife  of  a  man  who  hates  and 
abuses  her,  and  whom  she  loathes?  Has  society  any  in- 
terest in  forcing  women  to  live  with  men  they  hate  ? 

There  is  no  real  marriage  without  love,  and  in  the  mar- 
riage state  there  is  no  morality  without  love.  A  woman 
who  remains  the  wife  of  a  man  whom  she  despises,  or  does 
not  love,  corrupts  her  soul.     She  becomes  degraded,  pol' 


57^  INTERVIEWS. 

luted,  and  feels  that  her  flesh  has  been  soiled.  Under  sucl, 
circumstances  a  good  woman  suffers  the  agonies  of  moral 
death.  It  may  be  said  that  the  woman  can  leave  her  hus- 
band ;  that  she  is  not  compelled  to  live  in  the  same  house 
or  to  occupy  the  same  room.  If  she  has  the  right  to  leave, 
has  she  the  right  to  get  a  new  home  ?  Should  a  woman  be 
punished  for  having  married  ?  Women  do  not  marry  the 
wrong  men  on  purpose.  Thousands  of  mistakes  are  made 
— are  these  mistakes  sacred  ?  Must  they  be  preserved  to 
please  God? 

What  good  can  it  do  God  to  keep  people  married  who 
hate  each  other  ?  What  good  can  it  do  the  community  to 
keep  such  people  together  ? 

QtiesHon.  Do  you  consider  marriage  a  contract  or  a 
sacrament? 

Answer.  Marriage  is  the  most  important  contract  that 
human  beings  can  make.  No  matter  whether  it  is  called  a 
contract  or  a  sacrament,  it  remains  the  same.  A  true  mar- 
riage is  a  natural  concord  or  agreement  of  souls — a  harmony 
in  which  discord  is  not  even  imagined.  It  is  a  mingling  so 
perfect  that  only  one  seems  to  exist.  All  other  considera- 
tions are  lost.  The  present  seems  eternal.  In  this  supreme 
moment  there  is  no  shadow,  or  the  shadow  is  as  luminous 
as  light. 

When  two  beings  thus  love,  thus  unite,  this  is  the  true 
marriage  of  soul  and  soul.  The  idea  of  contract  is  lost. 
Duty  and  obligation  are  instantly  changed  into  desire  and 
joy,  and  two  lives,  like  uniting  streams,  flow  on  as  one. 

This  is  real  marriage. 

Now,  if  the  man  turns  out  to  be  a  wild  beast,  if  he  de- 
stroys the  happiness  of  the  wife,  why  should  she  remain 
his  victim  ? 

If  she  wants  a  divorce,  she  should  have  it.  The  divorce 
will  not  hurt  God  or  the  community.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  will  save  a  life. 


INTERVIEWS.  577 

No  man  not  poisoned  by  superstition  will  object  to  the 
release  of  an  abused  wife.  In  such  a  case  only  savages  can 
object  to  a  divorce.  The  man  who  wants  courts  and  legis- 
latures to  force  a  woman  to  live  with  him  is  a  monster. 

Question.  Do  you  believe  that  the  divorced  should  be 
allowed  to  marry  again  ? 

Afiswer.  Certainly.  Has  the  woman  whose  rights  have 
been  outraged  no  right  to  build  another  home  ?  Must  this 
woman,  full  of  kindness,  affection  and  health,  be  chained 
until  death  releases  her  ?  Is  there  no  future  for  her  ?  Must 
she  be  an  outcast  forever  ?  Can  she  never  sit  by  her  own 
hearth,  with  the  arms  of  her  children  about  her  neck,  and 
by  her  side  a  husband  who  loves  and  protects  her  ? 

There  are  no  two  sides  to  this  question. 

All  human  beings  should  be  allowed  to  correct  their 
mistakes.  If  the  wife  has  flagrantly  violated  the  contract 
of  marriage,  the  husband  should  be  given  a  divorce.  If 
the  wife  wants  a  divorce,  if  she  loathes  her  husband,  if  she 
no  longer  loves  him,  then  the  divorce  should  be  granted. 

It  is  immoral  for  a  woman  to  live  as  the  wife  of  a  man 
whom  she  abhors.  The  home  should  be  pure.  Children 
should  be  well-born.  Their  parents  should  love  each  other. 

Marriages  are  made  by  men  and  women,  not  by  society, 
not  by  the  state,  not  by  the  church,  not  by  the  gods. 
Nothing  is  moral,  that  does  not  tend  to  the  well-being  of 
sentient  beings. 

The  good  home  is  the  unit  of  good  government.  The 
hearthstone  is  the  corner-stone  of  civilization.  Society  is 
not  interested  in  the  preservation  of  hateful  homes.  It  is 
not  to  the  interest  of  society  that  good  women  should  be 
enslaved  or  that  they  should  become  mothers  by  husbands 
whom  they  hate. 

Most  of  the  laws  about  divorce  are  absurd  or  cruel,  and 

ought  to  be  repealed.   — T/^^  ^<fra/</.  New  York,  February,  1897. 


MUSIC,   NEWSPAPERS,  LYNCHING  AND 
ARBITRATION. 

Question.  How  do  you  enjoy  staying  in  Chicago? 

Atiswer.  Well,  I  am  as  happy  as  a  man  can  be  when  he 
is  away  from  home.  I  was  at  the  opera  last  night.  I  am 
always  happy  when  I  hear  the  music  of  Wagner  interpreted 
by  such  a  genius  as  Seidl.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  man 
in  the  world  who  has  in  his  brain  and  heart  more  of  the  real 
spirit  of  Wagner  than  Anton  Seidl.  He  knows  how  to 
lead,  how  to  phrase  and  shade,  how  to  rush  and  how  to 
linger,  and  to  express  every  passion  and  every  mood.  So  I 
was  happy  last  night  to  hear  him.  Then  I  heard  Edouard 
de  Reszke,  the  best  of  all  bass  singers,  with  tones  of  a  great 
organ,  and  others  soft  and  liquid,  and  Jean  de  Reszke,  a 
great  tenor,  who  sings  the  "Swan  Song"  as  though 
inspired ;  and  I  liked  Bispham,  but  hated  his  part.  He  is 
a  great  singer ;  so  is  Mme.  Litvinne. 

So,  I  can  say  that  I  am  enjoying  Chicago.  In  fact,  I 
always  did.  I  was  here  when  the  town  was  small,  not 
much  but  huts  and  hogs,  lumber  and  mud ;  and  now  it  is 
one  of  the  greatest  of  cities.  It  makes  me  happy  just  to 
think  of  the  difference.  I  was  born  the  year  Chicago  was 
incorporated.  In  m}^  time  matches  were  invented.  Steam 
navigation  became  really  useful.  The  telegraph  was  in^ 
vented.  Gas  was  discovered  and  applied  to  practical  uses, 
and  electricity  was  made  known  in  its  practical  workings  to 
mankind.  Thus,  it  is  seen  the  world  is  progressing ;  men 
are  becoming  civilized.  But  the  process  of  civilization  even 
now  is  slow.  In  one  or  two  thousand  years  we  may  hope 
to  see  a  vast  improvement  in  man's  condition.     We  may 

(578) 


INTERVIEWS.  579 

expect  to  have  the  employer  so  far  civilized  that  he  will  not 
try  to  make  money  for  money's  sake,  but  in  order  that  he 
may  apply  it  to  good  uses,  to  the  amelioration  of  his  fellow- 
man's  condition.  We  may  also  expect  to  see  the  working- 
man,  the  employe,  so  far  civilized  that  he  will  know  it  is 
impossible  and  undesirable  for  him  to  attempt  to  fix  the 
wages  paid  by  his  employer.  We  may  in  a  thousand  or 
more  years  reasonably  expect  that  the  employe  will  be  so 
far  civilized  and  become  sufficiently  sensible  to  know  that 
strikes  and  threats  and  mob  violence  can  never  improve  his 
condition.     Altruism  is  nonsense,  craziness. 

Question.  Is  Chicago  as  liberal,  intellectually,  as  New 
York? 

Answer.  I  think  so.  Of  course  you  will  find  thousands 
of  free,  thoughtful  people  in  New  York — people  who  think 
and  want  others  to  do  the  same.  So,  there  are  thousands 
of  respectable  people  who  are  centuries  behind  the  age. 
In  other  words,  you  will  find  all  kinds.  I  presume  the 
same  is  true  of  Chicago.  I  find  many  liberal  people  here, 
and  some  not  quite  so  liberal. 

Some  of  the  papers  here  seem  to  be  edited  by  real  pious 
men.  On  last  Tuesday  the  Tirjies- Herald  asked  pardon  of 
its  readers  for  having  given  a  report  of  my  lecture.  That 
editor  must  be  pious.  In  the  same  paper,  columns  were 
given  to  the  prospective  prize-fight  at  Carson  City.  All 
the  news  about  the  good  Corbett  and  the  orthodox  Fitz- 
simmons — about  the  training  of  the  gentlemen  who  are 
going  to  attack  each  others'  jugulars  and  noses;  who  are 
expected  to  break  jaws,  blacken  eyes,  and  peel  foreheads 
in  a  few  days,  to  settle  the  question  of  which  can  bear  the 
most  pounding.  In  this  great  contest  and  in  all  its  vulgar 
details,  the  readers  of  the  Times-Herald  are  believed  by  the 
editor  of  that  religious  daily  to  take  great  interest. 

The  editor  did  not  ask  the  pardon  of  his  readers  for  giv- 
ing so  much  space  to  the  nose-smashing  sport.     No  !     He 


580  INTERVIEWS. 

knew  that  would  fill  their  souls  with  delight,  and,  so  know- 
ing, he  reached  the  correct  conclusion  that  such  people 
would  not  enjoy  anything  that  I  had  said.  The  editor  did 
a  wise  thing  and  catered  to  a  large  majority  of  his  readers. 
I  do  not  think  that  we  have  as  religious  a  daily  paper  in 
New  York  as  the  Times- Herald.  So  the  editor  of  the 
Times-Herald  took  the  ground  that  men  with  little  learning, 
in  youth,  might  be  agnostic,  but  as  they  grew  sensible  they 
would  become  orthodox.  When  he  wrote  that  he  wass 
probably  thinking  of  Humboldt  and  Darwin,  of  Huxley 
and  Haeckel.  Ma}^  be  Herbert  Spencer  was  in  his  mind , 
but  I  think  that  he  must  have  been  thinking  of  a  few  boys 
in  his  native  village. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  about  prize-fighting  any- 
way ? 

Answer.  Well,  I  think  that  prize-fighting  is  worse,  if 
possible,  than  revival  meetings.  Next  to  fighting  to  kill, 
as  they  did  in  the  old  Roman  days,  I  think  the  modern 
prize-fight  is  the  most  disgusting  and  degrading  of  exhibi- 
tions. All  fights,  whether  cock-fights,  bull-fights  ot 
pugilistic  encounters,  are  practiced  and  enjoyed  only  by 
savages.  No  matter  what  office  they  hold,  what  wealth  ot 
education  they  have,  they  are  simply  savages.  Under  no 
possible  circumstances  would  I  witness  a  prize-fight  or  a 
bull-fight  or  a  dog-fight.  The  Marquis  of  Queensbury  was 
once  at  my  house,  and  I  found  his  opinions  were  the  same 
as  mine.  Everyone  thinks  he  had  something  to  do  with  the 
sport  of  prize-fighting,  but  he  did  not,  except  to  make 
some  rules  once  for  a  college  boxing  contest.  He  told  me 
that  he  never  saw  but  one  prize-fight  in  his  life,  and  that 
made  him  sick. 

Qttestion.  How  are  you  on  the  arbitration  treaty  ? 

Ans7ver.  I  am  for  it  with  all  my  heart.  I  have  read  it, 
and  read  it  with  care,  and  to  me  it  seems  absolutely  fair. 
England  and  America  sh-^uld  set  an  example  to  the  world 


INTERVIEWS.  581 

The  English-speaking  people  have  reason  enough  and 
sense  enough,  I  hope,  to  settle  their  differences  by  argument 
— by  reason.  Let  us  get  the  wild  beast  out  of  us.  Two 
great  nations  like  England  and  America  appealing  to  force, 
arguing  with  shot  and  shell!  What  is  education  worth? 
Is  what  we  call  civilization  a  sham?  Yes,  I  believe  in 
peace,  in  arbitration,  in  settling  disputes  like  reasonable, 
human  beings.  All  that  war  can  do  is  to  determine  who  is 
the  stronger.  It  throws  no  light  on  any  question,  advances 
no  argument.  There  is  a  point  to  a  bayonet,  but  no  logic. 
After  the  war  is  over  the  victory  does  not  tell  which  nation 
w^as  right.  Civilized  men  take  their  differences  to  courts 
or  arbitrators.  Civilized  nations  should  do  the  same. 
There  ought  to  be  an  international  court. 

Let  every  man  do  all  he  can  to  prevent  war — to  prevent 
the  waste,  the  cruelties,  the  horrors  that  follow  every  flag 
on  every  field  of  battle.  It  is  time  that  man  was  human — 
time  that  the  beast  was  out  of  his  heart. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  McKinley's  inaugural  ? 

Answer.  It  is  good,  honest,  clear,  patriotic  and  sensible. 
There  is  one  thing  in  it  that  touched  me;  I  agree  with  him 
that  lynching  has  to  be  stopped.  You  see  that  now  we  are 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  not  simply  of  the  State  in 
which  we  happen  to  live.  I  take  the  ground  that  it  is  the 
business  of  the  United  States  to  protect  its  citizens,  not 
only  when  they  are  in  some  other  country,  but  when  they 
are  at  home.  The  United  States  cannot  discharge  this 
obligation  by  allowing  the  States  to  do  as  they  please. 
Where  citizens  are  being  lynched  the  Government  should 
interfere.  If  the  Governor  of  some  barbarian  State  says 
that  he  cannot  protect  the  lives  of  citizens,  then  the  United 
States  should,  if  it  took  the  entire  Army  and  Navy. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  of  charity  organizations  ? 

Answer.  I  think  that  the  people  who  support  them  are 
^ood  and  generous — splendid — but  I  have  a  poor  opinion 


5«2  INTERVIEWS. 

of  the  people  in  charge.  As  a  rule,  I  think  they  are  cold, 
impudent  and  heartless.  There  is  too  much  circumlocu- 
tion, or  too  many  details  and  too  little  humanity.  The 
Jews  are  exceedingly  charitable.  I  think  that  in  New  York 
the  men  who  are  doing  the  most  for  their  fellow-men  are 
Jews.  Nathan  Strauss  is  trying  to  feed  the  hungry,  warm 
the  cold,  and  clothe  the  naked.  For  the  most  part,  or- 
ganized charities  are,  I  think,  failures.  A  real  charity  has 
to  be  in  the  control  of  a  good  man,  a  real  sympathetic,  a 
sensible  man,  one  who  helps  others  to  help  themselves. 
Let  a  hungry  man  go  to  an  organized  society  and  it  re- 
quires several  daj^s  to  satisfy  the  officers  that  the  man  is 
hungry.     Meanwhile  he  will  probably  starve  to  death. 

Question,  Do  you  believe  in  free  text-books  in  the  public 
schools  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  care  about  the  text-book  question. 
But  I  am  in  favor  of  the  public  school.  Nothing  should  be 
taught  that  somebody  does  not  know.  No  superstition — • 
nothing  but  science. 

Question.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  said  lately  about 
your  suicide  theology,  Colonel.  Do  you  still  believe  that 
suicide  is  justifiable? 

Answer.  Certainly.  When  a  man  is  useless  to  himself 
and  to  others  he  has  the  right  to  determine  what  he  will  do 
about  living.  The  only  thing  to  be  considered  is  a  man's 
obligation  to  his  fellow-beings  and  to  himself.  I  don't  take 
into  consideration  any  supernatural  nonsense.  If  God 
wants  a  man  to  stay  here  he  ought  to  make  it  more  com- 
fortable for  him. 

Question.  Since  you  expounded  your  justification  of  sui- 
cide. Colonel,  I  believe  you  have  had  some  cases  of  suicide 
laid  at  your  door  ? 

Answer.  Oh,  yes.  Every  suicide  that  has  happened 
since  that  time  has  been  charged  to  me.  I  don't  know  how 
the  people  account  for  the  suicides  before  my  time.     I  have 


INTERVIEWS.  583 

not  yet  heard  of  my  being  charged  with  the  death  of  Cato, 
but  that  may  yet  come  to  pass.  I  was  reading  the  other 
day  that  the  rate  of  suicide  in  Germany  is  increasing.  I 
suppose  my  article  has  been  translated  into  German. 

Qicestion.  How  about  lying,  Colonel  ?  Is  it  ever  right 
to  lie  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  sometimes.  In  war  when  a  man  is 
captured  by  the  enemy  he  ought  to  lie  to  them  to  mislead 
them.  What  we  call  strategy  is  nothing  more  than  lies. 
For  the  accomplishment  of  a  good  end,  for  instance,  the 
saving  of  a  woman's  reputation,  it  is  many  times  perfectly 
right  to  lie.  As  a  rule,  people  ought  to  tell  the  truth.  If 
it  is  right  to  kill  a  man  to  save  your  own  life  it  certainly 
ought  to  be  right  to  fool  him  for  the  same  purpose.  I 
would  rather  be  deceived  than  killed,  wouldn't  you  ? — The 

Inter-Ocean^Chic&go,  Illinois,  March,  1897. 

A  VISIT  TO  SHAWNS  GARDEN. 

Question.  I  was  told  that  you  came  to  St.  Louis  on  your 
wedding  trip  some  thirty  years  ago  and  went  to  Shaw's 
Garden  ? 

Answer.  Yes;  we  were  married  on  the  13th  of  Febru- 
ary, 1862.  We  were  here  in  St.  Louis,  and  we  did  visit 
Shaw's  Garden,  and  we  thought  it  perfectly  beautifuL 
Afterward  we  visited  the  Kew  Gardens  in  London,  but 
our  remembrance  of  Shaw's  left  Kew  in  the  shade. 

Of,  course,  I  have  been  in  St.  Louis  many  times,  my 
first  visit  being,  I  think,  in  1854.  ^  have  always  liked  the 
town.  I  was  acquainted  at  one  time  with  a  great  many  of 
your  old  citizens.  Most  of  them  have  died,  and  I  know 
but  few  of  the  present  generation.  I  used  to  stop  at  the 
old  Planter's  House,  and  I  was  there  quite  often  during 
the  war.  In  those  days  I  saw  Hackett  as  Falstaff,  the  best 
Falstaff  that  ever  lived.  Ben  de  Bar  was  here  then,  and 
the  Maddern  sisters,  and  now  the  daughter  of  one  of  the 


584  INTERVIEWS. 

sisters,  Minnie  Maddern  Fiske,  is  one  of  the  greatest  act- 
resses in  the  world.  She  has  made  a  wonderful  hit  in  New 
York  this  season.  And  so  the  ebb  and  flow  of  life  goes  on 
— the  old  pass  and  the  young  arrive. 

"  Death  and  progress  !  "  It  may  be  that  death  is,  after 
all,  a  great  blessing.  Maybe  it  gives  zest  and  flavor  to  life, 
ardor  and  flame  to  love.  At  the  same  time  I  say  "  long 
life  "  to  all  my  friends. 

I  want  to  live — I  get  great  happiness  out  of  life.  I 
enjoy  the  company  of  my  friends.  I  enjoy  seeing 
the  faces  of  the  ones  I  love.  I  enjoy  art  and  music. 
I  love  Shakespeare  and  Burns ;  love  to  hear  the  music 
of  Wagner  ;  love  to  see  a  good  play.  I  take  pleasure  in  eat- 
ing and  sleeping.     The  fact  is,  I  like  to  breathe. 

I  want  to  get  all  the  happiness  out  of  life  that  I  can.  I 
want  to  suck  the  orange  dry,  so  that  when  death  comes 
nothing  but  the  peelings  will  be  left,  and  so  I  say  :  "  Long 

life  I  " — The  Republic,  St.  Louis,  April  11,  1897. 

THE    VENEZUELAN    BOUNDARY   DISCUSSION  AND 
THE   WHIPPING-POST. 

Question.  What  is  your  opinion  as  to  the  action  of  the 
President  on  the  Venezuelan  matter? 

Answer.  In  my  judgment,  the  President  acted  in  haste 
and  without  thought.  It  may  be  that  it  would  have  been 
well,  enough  for  him  to  have  laid  the  correspondence  be- 
fore Congress  and  asked  for  an  appropriation  for  a  com- 
mission to  ascertain  the  facts,  to  the  end  that  our  Govern- 
ment might  intelligently  act.  There  was  no  propriety  in 
gottig  further  than  that.  To  almost  declare  war  before  the 
facts  were  known  was  a  blunder — almost  a  crime.  For  my 
part,  I  do  not  think  the  Monroe  doctrine  has  anything  to 
do  with  the  case.  Mr.  Olney  reasons  badly,  and  it  is  only 
by  a  perversion  of  facts,  and  an  exaggeration  of  facts,  and 
by  calling  in  question  the  motives  of  England  that  it  is 


INTERVIEWS.  585 

possible  to  conclude  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  has  or  can 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  controversy.  The  President 
went  out  of  his  way  to  find  a  cause  of  quarrel.  Nobody 
doubts  the  courage  of  the  American  people,  and  we  for  that 
reason  can  afford  to  be  sensible  and  prudent.  Valor  and 
discretion  should  go  together.  Nobody  doubts  the  courage 
of  England. 

America  and  England  are  the  leading  nations,  and  ia 
their  keeping,  to  a  great  extent,  is  the  glory  of  the  future. 
They  should  be  at  peace.  Should  a  difference  arise  it 
should  be  settled  without  recourse  to  war. 

Fighting  settles  nothing  but  the  relative  strength.  No 
light  is  thrown  on  the  cause  of  the  conflict — on  the  question 
or  fact  that  caused  the  war. 

Question.  Do  you  think  that  there  is  any  danger  of  war  ? 

Answer,  If  the  members  of  Congress  really  represent  the 
people,  then  there  is  danger.  But  I  do  not  believe  the 
people  will  really  want  to  fight  about  a  few  square  miles  of 
malarial  territory  in  Venezuela — something  in  which  they 
have  no  earthly  or  heavenly  interest.  The  people  do  not 
wish  to  fight  for  fight's  sake.  When  they  understand  the 
question  they  will  regard  the  administration  as  almost  in- 
sane. 

The  message  has  already  cost  us  more  than  the  War  of 
181 2  or  the  Mexican  war,  or  both.  Stocks  and  bonds  have 
decreased  in  value  several  hundred  millions,  and  the  end  is 
not  yet.  It  may  be  that  it  will,  on  account  of  the  panic,  be 
impossible  for  the  Government  to  maintain  the  gold  stand- 
ard— the  reserve.  Then  gold  would  command  a  premium, 
the  Government  be  unable  to  redeem  the  greenbacks,  and 
the  result  would  be  financial  chaos,  and  all  this  the  result 
of  Mr.  Cleveland's  curiosity  about  a  boundary  line  between 
two  countries,  in  neither  of  which  we  have  any  interest,  and 
this  curiosity  has  already  cost  us  more  than  both  countries, 
including  the  boundary  line,  are  worth. 


586  INTERVIEWS. 

The  President  made  a  great  mistake.  So  did  the  House 
and  Senate,  and  the  poor  people  have  paid  a  part  of  the 
cost. 

Question,  What  is  your  opinion  of  the  Gerry  Whipping. 
Post  bill  ? 

Answer.  I  see  that  it  has  passed  the  Senate,  and  yet  I 
think  it  a  disgrace  to  the  State.  How  the  Senators  can  go 
back  to  torture,  to  the  Dark  Ages,  to  the  custom  of  savagery, 
is  beyond  belief.  I  hope  that  the  House  is  nearer  civilized, 
and  that  the  infamous  bill  will  be  defeated.  If,  however, 
the  bill  should  pass,  then  I  hope  Governor  Morton  will 
veto  it. 

Nothing  is  more  disgusting,  more  degrading,  than  the 
whipping-post  It  degrades  the  whipped  and  the  whipper. 
It  degrades  all  who  witness  the  flogging.  What  kind  of  a 
person  will  do  the  whipping?  Men  who  would  apply  the 
lash  to  the  naked  backs  of  criminals  would  have  to  be  as 
low  as  the  criminals,  and  probably  a  little  lower. 

The  shadow  of  the  whipping-post  does  not  fall  on  any 
civilized  country,  and  never  will.  The  next  thing  we  know 
Mr.  Gerry  will  probably  introduce  some  bill  to  brand  crimi- 
nals on  the  forehead  or  cut  off  their  ears  and  slit  their  noses. 
This  is  in  the  same  line,  and  is  born  of  the  same  hellish 
-Spirit.  There  is  no  reforming  power  in  torture,  in  bruising 
and  mangling  the  flesh. 

If  the  bill  becomes  a  law,  I  hope  it  will  provide  that 
the  lash  shall  be  applied  by  Mr.  Gerry  and  his  suc- 
cessors in  office.  Let  those  pretended  enemies  of  cruelty 
enjoy  themselves.  If  the  bill  passes,  I  presume  Mr.  Gerry 
could  get  a  supply  of  knouts  from  Russia,  as  that  country 
has  just  abolished  the  whipping-post — ta^  7:>«r»a/,  New  York, 

December  24, 189So 


COLONEL  SHEPARD'S  STAGE  HORSES.* 

It  might  not  be  in  good  taste  for  me  to  say  anything 
about  Colonel  Shepard's  horses.  He  might  think  me  prej- 
udiced. But  I  am  satisfied  horses  cannot  live  on  faith  or 
on  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for.  It  is  far  better  for 
the  horse,  to  feed  him  without  praying,  than  to  pray  without 
feeding  him.  It  is  better  to  be  kind  even  to  animals,  than  to 
quote  Scripture  in  small  capitals.  Now,  I  am  not  saying 
anything  against  Colonel  Shepard.  I  do  not  know  how  he 
feeds  his  horses.  If  he  is  as  good  and  kind  as  he  is  pious, 
then  I  have  nothing  to  say.  Maybe  he  does  not  allow  the 
horses  to  break  the  Sabbath  by  eating.  They  are  so  slow 
that  they  make  one  think  of  a  fast.  They  put  me  in  mind 
of  the  Garden  of  Eden — the  rib  story.  When  I  watch 
them  on  the  avenue  I  too,  fall  to  quoting  Scripture,  and 
say,  "  Can  these  dry  bones  live?  "  Still,  I  have  a  delicacy 
on  this  subject ;  I  hate  to  think  about  it,  and  I  think  the 

horses   feel    the   same  way. — Mommg  Advertiser.  New  York,  January 
21, 1892. 

A  REPLY  TO  THE  REV.  L.  A.  BANKS. 

Question.  Have  you  read  the  remarks  made  about  you  by 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Banks,  and  what  do  you  think  of  what  he 
said? 

Answer,  The  reverend  gentleman  pays  me  a  great  com- 
pliment by  comparing  me  to  a  circus.  Everybody  enjoys 
the  circus.     They  love  to  see  the  acrobats,  the  walkers  on 

•  One  of  Colonel  Shepard's  equine  wrecks  was  picked  up  on  Ptfth  avenue  yesterday  by 
the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  Society,  and  was  laid  up  for  repairs.  The  horse  was  about 
twenty-eight  years  old,  badly  foundered,  and  its  leg  was  cut  and  bleeding.  It  was  the 
leader  of  three  that  had  been  hauling  a  Fifth  avenue  stage,  and,  according  to  the  Society's 
agents,  was  in  about  as  bad  a  condition  as  a  horse  could  be  and  keep  on  his  feet.  The 
other  TWO  horses  were  little  better,  neither  of  them  being  fit  to  drive. 

Colonel  Shepard's  scrawny  nags  have  long  been  an  eyesore  to  Colonel  Robert  G. 
Ingersoll,  who  is  compelied  to  see  them  from  his  windows  at  number  400  Fifth  avenua 
Be  said  last  night :  (5g7) 


588  INTBRVIBWS. 

the  tight  rope,  the  beautiful  girls  on  the  horses,  and  they 
laugh  at  the  wit  of  the  clown.  They  are  delighted  with  the 
jugglers,  with  the  music  of  the  band.  They  drink  the 
lemonade,  eat  the  colored  popcorn  and  laugh  until  they 
nearly  roll  off  their  seats.  Now  the  circus  has  a  few 
animals  so  that  Christians  can  have  an  excuse  for  going. 
Think  of  the  joy  the  circus  gives  to  the  boys  and  girls. 
They  look  at  the  show  bills,  see  the  men  and  women  flying 
through  the  air,  bursting  through  paper  hoops,  the 
elephants  standing  on  their  heads,  and  the  clowns,  in 
curious  clothes,  with  hands  on  their  knees  and  open 
mouths,  supposed  to  be  filled  with  laughter. 

All  the  boys  and  girls  for  many  miles  around  know  the 
blessed  day.  They  save  their  money,  obey  their  parents, 
and  when  the  circus  comes  they  are  on  hand.  They  see 
the  procession  and  then  they  see  the  show.  They  are  all 
happy.  No  sermon  ever  pleased  them  as  much,  and  in 
comparison  even  the  Sunday  school  is  tame  and  dulL 

To  feel  that  I  give  as  much  joy  as  the  circus,  fills  me 
with  pleasure.  What  chance  would  the  Rev.  Dr.  Banks 
stand  against  a  circus  ? 

The  reverend  gentleman  has  done  me  a  great  honor,  and 
I  tender  him  my  sincere  thanks. 

QtiesHon.  Dr.  Banks  says  that  you  write  only  one  lecture 
a  year,  while  preachers  write  a  brand  new  one  every  week 
— that  if  you  did  that  people  would  tire  of  you.  What 
have  you  to  say  to  that? 

Answer.  It  may  be  that  great  artists  paint  only  one 
picture  a  year,  and  it  may  be  that  sign  painters  can  do 
several  jobs  a  day.  Still,  I  would  not  say  that  the  sign 
painters  were  superior  to  the  artists.  There  is  quite  a  dif- 
ference between  a  sculptor  and  a  stone-cutter. 

There  are  thousands  of  preachers  and  thoi* sands  and 
thousands  of  sermons  preached  every  year.  Has  any 
orthodox  minister  in  the  year   1898  given  just  one  para- 


INTERVIEWS.  5^9 

graph  to  literature  ?  Has  any  orthodox  preacher  uttered 
one  great  thought,  clothed  in  perfect  English  that  thrilled 
the  hearers  like  music — one  great  strophe  that  became  one 
of  the  treasures  of  memory  ? 

I  will  make  the  question  a  little  broader.  Has  any- 
orthodox  preacher,  or  any  preacher  in  an  orthodox  pulpit 
uttered  a  paragraph  of  what  may  be  called  sculptured 
speech  since  Henry  Ward  Beecher  died  ?  I  do  not  wonder 
that  the  sermons  are  poon  Their  doctrines  have  been  dis- 
cussed for  centuries.  There  is  little  chance  for  originality ; 
they  not  only  thresh  old  straw,  but  they  thresh  straw  that 
has  been  threshed  a  million  times — straw  in  which  there 
has  not  been  a  grain  of  wheat  for  hundreds  of  years.  No 
wonder  that  they  have  nervous  prostration.  No  wonder 
that  they  need  vacations,  and  no  wonder  that  their  con- 
gregations enjoy  the  vacations  as  keenly  as  the  ministers 
themselves.  Better  deliver  a  real  good  address  fifty-two 
times  than  fifty-two  poor  ones — just  for  the  sake  of  variety. 

Question.  Dr.  Banks  says  that  the  tendency  at  present  is 
not  toward  Agnosticism,  but  toward  Christianity.  What 
is  your  opinion  ? 

Answer.  When  I  was  a  boy  *'  Infidels  "  were  very  rare. 
A  man  who  denied  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  was  regarded 
as  a  monster.  Now  there  are  in  this  country  millions  who 
regard  the  Bible  as  the  work  of  ignorant  and  superstitious 
men.  A  few  years  ago  the  Bible  was  the  standard.  All 
scientific  theories  were  tested  by  the  Bible.  Now  science 
is  the  standard  and  the  Bible  is  tested  by  that. 

Dr.  Banks  did  not  mention  the  names  of  the  great  scien- 
tists who  are  or  were  Christians,  but  he  probably  thought 
of  Laplace,  Humboldt,  Haeckel,  Huxley,  Spencer,  Tyndall, 
Darwin,  Helmholtz  and  Draper.  When  he  spoke  of  Chris- 
tian statesmen  he  likely  thought  of  Jefferson,  Franklin, 
Washington,  Paine  and  Lincoln — or  he  may  have  thought 
of  Pierce,  Fillmore  and  Buchanan. 


590  INTERVIEWS. 

But,  after  all,  there  is  no  argument  in  names.  A  man  is 
not  necessarily  great  because  he  holds  office  or  wears  a 
crown  or  talks  in  a  pulpit.  Facts,  reasons,  are  better  than 
names.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  nothing  can  be  plainer 
vthan  that  the  church  is  losing  ground — that  the  people 
:are  discarding  the  creeds  and  that  superstition  has  passed 
the  zenith  of  its  power. 

Question.  Dr.  Banks  says  that  Christ  did  not  mention  the 
Western  Hemisphere  because  God  does  nothing  for  men 
that  they  can  do  for  themselves.     What  have  you  to  say  ? 

Answer.  Christ  said  nothing  about  the  Western  Hemis- 
phere because  he  did  not  know  that  it  existed.  He  did  not 
know  the  shape  of  the  earth.  He  was  not  a  scientist — 
never  even  hinted  at  any  science — never  told  anybody  to 
investigate — to  think.  His  idea  was  that  this  life  should 
be  spent  in  preparing  for  the  next.  For  all  the  evils  of 
this  life,  and  the  next,  faith  was  his  remedy. 

I  see  from  the  report  in  the  paper  that  Dr.  Banks,  after 
making  the  remarks  about  me  preached  a  sermon  on 
"  Herod  the  Villain  in  the  Drama  of  Christ."  Who  made 
Herod  ?  Dr.  Banks  will  answer  that  God  made  him.  Did 
God  know  what  Herod  would  do?  Yes.  Did  he  know 
that  he  would  cause  the  children  to  be  slaughtered  in  his 
vain  efforts  to  kill  the  infant  Christ  ?  Yes.  Dr.  Banks 
will  say  that  God  is  not  responsible  for  Herod  because  he 
gave  Herod  freedom.  Did  God  know  how  Herod  would 
use  his  freedom  ?  Did  he  know  that  he  would  become  the 
villain  in  the  drama  of  Christ  ?  Yes.  Who,  then,  is  really 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  Herod? 

If  I  could  change  a  stone  into  a  human  being,  and  if  I 
could  give  this  being  freedom  of  will,  and  if  I  knew  that 
if  I  made  him  he  would  murder  a  man,  and  if  with  that 
knowledge  I  made  him,  and  he  did  commit  a  murder,  who 
would  be  the  real  murderer  ? 

Will  Dr.   Banks  in  his  fifty-two  sermons  of  next  year 


INTERVIEWS.  591 

show  that  his  God  is  not  responsible  for  the  crimes  of 
Herod  ? 

No  doubt  Dr.  Banks  is  a  good  man,  and  no  doubt 
he  thinks  that  liberty  of  thought  leads  to  hell,  and 
honestly  believes  that  all  doubt  comes  from  the  Devil. 
I  do  not  blame  him.  He  thinks  as  he  must.  He  is  a  pro- 
duct of  conditions. 

He  ought  to  be  my  friend  because  I  am  doing  the  best  I 

can  to  civilize  his  congregation. —  The  Plaindealer,  Cleveland,  Ohio, 
1898. 

CUBA— ZOLA  AND  THEOSOPHY. 

Question.  What  do  you  think,  Colonel,  of  the  Cuban  sit- 
uation ? 

Answer.  What  I  know  about  this  question  is  known 
by  all.  I  suppose  that  the  President  has  information  that 
I  know  nothing  about.  Of  course,  all  my  sympathies  are 
with  the  Cubans.  They  are  making  a  desperate — an  heroic 
struggle  for  their  freedom.  For  many  years  they  have 
been  robbed  and  trampled  under  foot.  Spain  is,  and 
always  has  been,  a  terrible  master — heartless  and  infamous. 
There  is  no  language  with  which  to  tell  what  Cuba  has 
suffered.  In  my  judgment, this  country  should  assist  the 
Cubans.  We  ought  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of 
that  island,  and  we  ought  to  feed  the  starving  victims  of 
Spain.  For  years  we  have  been  helping  Spain.  Cleveland 
did  all  he  could  to  prevent  the  Cubans  from  getting  arms 
and  men.  This  was  a  criminal  mistake — a  mistake  that 
even  Spain  did  not  appreciate.  All  this  should  instantly 
be  reversed,  and  we  should  give  aid  to  Cuba.  The  war 
that  Spain  is  waging  shocks  every  civilized  man.  Spain  has 
always  been  the  same.  In  Holland,  in  Peru,  in  Mexico^ 
she  was  infinitely  cruel,  and  she  is  the  same  to-day.  She 
loves  to  torture,  to  imprison,  to  degrade,  to  kill.  Her  idea 
of  perfect  happiness  is  to  shed  blood.     Spain  is  a  legacy  of 


592  INTERVIEWS. 

the  Dark  Ages.  She  belongs  to  the  den,  the  caye  period. 
She  has  no  business  to  exist.  She  is  a  blot,  a  stain  on  the 
map  of  the  world.  Of  course  there  are  some  good  Span- 
iards, but  they  are  not  in  control. 

I  want  Cuba  to  be  free.  I  want  Spain  driven  from  the 
Western  World.  She  has  already  starved  five  hundred 
thousand  Cubans — poor,  helpless  non-combatants.  Among 
the  helpless  she  is  like  a  hyena — a  tiger  among  lambs. 
This  country  ought  to  stop  this  gigantic  crime.  We  should 
do  this  in  the  name  of  humanity — for  the  sake  of  the  starv- 
ing, the  dying. 

Question.  Do  you  think  we  are  going  to  have  war  with 
Spain  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  think  there  will  be  war.  Unless  Spain 
is  insane,  she  will  not  attack  the  United  States.  She  is 
bankrupt.  No  nation  will  assist  her.  A  civilized  nation 
would  be  ashamed  to  take  her  hand,  to  be  her  friend.  She 
has  not  the  power  to  put  down  the  rebellion  in  Cuba.  How 
then  can  she  hope  to  conquer  this  country  ?  She  is  full  of 
brag  and  bluster.  Of  course  she  will  play  her  hand  for  all 
it  is  worth,  so  far  as  talk  goes.  She  will  double  her  fists 
and  make  motions.  She  will  assume  the  attitude  of  war, 
but  she  will  never  fight.  Should  she  commence  hostilities, 
the  war  would  be  short.  She  would  lose  her  navy.  The 
little  commerce  she  has  would  be  driven  from  the  sea.  She 
would  drink  to  the  dregs  the  cup  of  humiliation  and  dis- 
grace. I  do  not  believe  that  Spain  is  insane  enough  to  fire 
upon  our  flag.  I  know  that  there  is  nothing  too  mean,  too 
cruel  for  her  to  do,  but  still  she  must  have  sense  enough  to 
try  and  save  her  own  life.  No,  I  think  there  will  be  no 
war,  but  I  believe  that  Cuba  will  be  free.  My  opinion  is 
that  the  Maine  was  blown  up  from  the  outside — blown  up 
by  Spanish  officers,  and  I  think  the  report  of  the  Board  will 
be  to  that  effect.  Such  a  crime  ought  to  redden  even  the 
cheeks  of   Spain.     As   soon   as  this   fact   is   known,  other 


INTERVIEWS.  593 

nations  will  regard  Spain  with  hatred  and  horror.  If  the 
Maine  was  destroyed  by  Spain  we  will  ask  for  indemnity. 
The  people  insist  that  that  account  be  settled  and  at  once. 
Possibly  we  may  attack  Spain.  There  is  the  only  danger 
of  war.  We  must  avenge  that  crime.  The  destruction  of 
two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  Americans  must  be  avenged. 
Free  Cuba  must  be  their  monument.  I  hope  for  the  sake 
of  human  nature  that  the  Spanish  did  not  destroy  the 
Maine.  I  hope  it  was  the  result  of  an  accident.  I  hope 
there  is  to  be  no  war,  but  Spain  must  be  driven  from  the 
New  World. 

Question.  What  about  Zola's  trial  and  conviction  ? 

Answer.  It  was  one  of  the  most  infamous  trials  in  the 
history  of  the  world.  Zola  is  a  g^eat  man,  a  genius,  the 
best  man  in  France.  His  trial  was  a  travesty  on  justice. 
The  judge  acted  like  a  bandit.  The  proceedings  were  a 
disgrace  to  human  nature.  The  jurors  must  have  been 
ignorant  beasts.  The  French  have  disgraced  themselves. 
Long  live  Zola. 

Qicestion.  Having  expressed  yourself  less  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  Theosophy  than  upon  other  religious  beliefs,  and  as 
Theosophy  denies  the  existence  of  a  God  as  worshiped  by 
Christianity,  what  is  your  idea  of  the  creed  ? 

Answer,  Insanity.  I  think  it  is  a  mild  form  of  delusion 
and  illusion;  vague,  misty,  obscure,  half  dream,  mixed 
with  other  mistakes  and  fragments  of  facts — a  little  philoso- 
phy, absurdity — a  few  impossibilities— some  improbabilities 
— some  accounts  of  events  that  never  happened — some 
prophecies  that  will  not  come  to  pass — a  structure  without 
foundation.  But  the  Theosophists  are  good  people ;  kind 
and  honest.     Theosophy  is  based  on  the  supernatural  and  is 

just   as    absurd    as  the    orthodox    creeds. — The  Courier  journal^ 
LouisTille,  Ky.,  February,  1886. 


HOW  TO  BECOME  AN  ORATOR. 

QziesHon.  What  advice  would  you  give  to  a  young  man 
who  was  ambitious  to  become  a  successful  public  speaker 
or  orator  ? 

Answer.  In  the  first  place,  I  would  advise  him  to  have 
something  to  say — something  worth  saying — something 
that  people  would  be  glad  to  hear.  This  is  the  important 
thing.  Back  of  the  art  of  speaking  must  be  the  power  to 
think.  Without  thoughts  words  are  empty  purses.  Most 
people  imagine  that  almost  any  words  uttered  in  a  loud 
voice  and  accompanied  by  appropriate  gestures,  constitute 
an  oration.  I  would  advise  the  young  man  to  study  his 
subject,  to  find  what  others  had  thought,  to  look  at  it  from 
all  sides.  Then  I  would  tell  him  to  write  out  his  thoughts 
or  to  arrange  them  in  his  mind,  so  that  he  would  know 
exactly  what  he  was  going  to  say.  Waste  no  time  on  the 
how  until  you  are  satisfied  with  the  what.  After  you  know 
what  you  are  to  say.  then  you  can  think  of  how  it  should  be 
said.  Then  you  can  think  about  tone,  emphasis,  and 
gesture;  but  if  you  really  understand  what  you  say, 
emphasis,  tone,  and  gesture  will  take  care  of  themselves. 
All  these  should  come  from  the  inside.  They  should  be  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  feelings.  Voice  and  gesture 
should  be  governed  by  the  emotions.  They  should  uncon- 
sciously be  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  sentiments.  The 
orator  should  be  true  to  his  subject,  should  avoid  any 
reference  to  himself. 

The  great  column  of  his  argument  should  be  unbroken. 
He  can  adorn  it  with  vines  and  flowers,  but  they  should  not 
be  in  such  profusion  as  to  hide  the  column.  He  should 
give  variety  of  episode  by  illustrations,  but  they  should  be 

(501) 


INTERVIEWS.  595 

used  only  for  the  purpose  of  adding  strength  to  the  argu- 
ment. The  man  who  wishes  to  become  an  orator  should 
study  language.  He  should  know  the  deeper  meaning  of 
words.  He  should  understand  the  vigor  and  velocity  of 
verbs  and  the  color  of  adjectives.  He  should  know  how  to 
sketch  a  scene,  to  paint  a  picture,  to  give  life  and  action. 
He  should  be  a  poet  and  a  dramatist,  a  painter  and  an 
actor.  He  should  cultivate  his  imagination.  He  should 
become  familiar  with  the  great  poetry  and  fiction,  with 
splendid  and  heroic  deeds.  He  should  be  a  student  of 
Shakespeare.  He  should  read  and  devour  the  great  plays. 
From  Shakespeare  he  could  learn  the  art  of  expression,  of 
compression,  and  all  the  secrets  of  the  head  and  heart. 

The  great  orator  is  full  of  variety — of  surprises.  Like  a 
juggler,  he  keeps  the  colored  balls  in  the  air.  He  expresses 
himself  in  pictures.  His  speech  is  a  panorama.  By  con- 
tinued change  he  holds  the  attention.  The  interest  does 
not  flag.  He  does  not  allow  himself  to  be  anticipated.  He 
is  always  in  advance.  He  does  not  repeat  himself.  A 
picture  is  shown  but  once.  So,  an  orator  should  avoid  the 
commonplace.  There  should  be  no  stuffing,  no  filling.  He 
should  put  no  cotton  with  his  silk,  no  common  metals  with 
his  gold.  He  should  remember  that  "  gilded  dust  is  not  as 
good  as  dusted  gold."  The  great  orator  is  honest,  sincere. 
He  does  not  pretend.  His  brain  and  heart  go  together. 
Every  drop  of  his  blood  is  convinced.  Nothing  is  forced. 
He  knows  exactly  what  he  wishes  to  do — knows  when  he 
has  finished  it,  and  stops. 

Only  a  great  orator  knows  when  and  how  to  close.  Most 
speakers  go  on  after  they  are  through.  They  are  satisfied 
only  with  a  "  lame  and  impotent  conclusion."  Most  speakers 
lack  variet}^  They  travel  a  straight  and  dusty  road.  The 
great  orator  is  full  of  episode.  He  convinces  and  charms 
by  indirection.  He  leaves  the  road,  visits  the  fields, 
wanders  in  the  woods,  listens  to  the  murmurs  of  springs, 


596  INTERVIEWS. 

the  songs  of  birds.  He  gathers  flowers,  scales  the  crags, 
and  comes  back  to  the  highway  refreshed,  invigorated.  He 
does  not  move  in  a  straight  line.  He  wanders  and  winds 
like  a  stream. 

Of  course,  no  one  can  tell  a  man  what  to  do  to  become 
an  orator.  The  great  orator  has  that  wonderful  thing 
called  presence.  He  has  that  strange  something  known  as 
magnetism.  He  must  have  a  flexible,  musical  voice, 
capable  of  expressing  the  pathetic,  the  humorous,  the 
heroic.  His  body  must  move  in  unison  with  his  thought. 
He  must  be  a  reasoner,  a  logician.  He  must  have  a  keen 
sense  of  humor — of  the  laughable.  He  must  have  wit, 
sharp  and  quick.  He  must  have  sympathy.  His  smiles 
should  be  the  neighbors  of  his  tears.  He  must  have 
imagination.  He  should  give  eagles  to  the  air,  and  painted 
moths  should  flutter  in  the  sunlight. 

While  I  cannot  tell  a  man  what  to  do  to  become  an 
orator,  I  can  tell  him  a  few  things  not  to  do.  There  should 
be  no  introduction  to  an  oration.  The  orator  should  com- 
mence with  his  subject.  There  should  be  no  prelude,  no 
flourish,  1  o  apology,  no  explanation.  He  should  say 
nothing  about  himself.  Like  a  sculptor,  he  stands  by  his 
block  of  stono.  Every  stroke  is  for  a  purpose.  As  he 
works  the  form  begins  to  appear.  When  the  statue  is 
finished  the  workman  stops.  Nothing  is  more  difficult 
than  a  perfect  close.  Few  poems,  few  pieces  of  music,  few 
novels  end  well.  A  good  story,  a  great  speech,  a  perfect 
poem  should  end  just  at  the  proper  point.  The  bud,  the 
blossom,  the  fruit.  No  delay.  A  great  speech  is  a  crystal- 
lization in  its  logic,  an  efflorescence  in  its  poetry. 

I  have  not  heard  many  speeches.  Most  of  the  great 
speakers  in  our  country  were  before  my  time.  I  heard 
Beecher,  and  he  was  an  orator.  He  had  imagination, 
humor,  and  iniensity.  His  brain  was  as  fertile  as  the 
valleys  of  the  tropics.     He  was  too  broad,  too  philosophic, 


^  INTERVIEWS.  597 

too  poetic  for  the  pulpit.  Now  and  then  he  broke  the 
fetters  of  his  creed,  escaped  from  his  orthodox  prison,  and 
became  sublime. 

Theodore  Parker  was  an  orator.  He  preached  great 
sermons.  His  sermons  on  "Old  Age"  and  **  Webster," 
and  his  address  on  "  Liberty "  were  filled  with  great 
thoughts,  marvelously  expressed.  When  he  dealt  with 
human  events,  with  realities,  with  things  he  knew,  he  was 
superb.  When  he  spoke  of  freedom,  of  duty,  of  living  to 
the  ideal,  of  mental  integrity,  he  seemed  inspired. 

Webster  I  never  heard.  He  had  great  qualities;  force, 
dignity,  clearness,  grandeur ;  but,  after  all,  he  worshiped 
the  past.  He  kept  his  back  to  the  sunrise.  There  was  no 
dawn  in  his  brain.  He  was  not  creative.  He  had  no 
spiric  of  prophecy.  He  lighted  no  torch.  He  was  not  true 
to  his  ideal.  He  talked  sometimes  as  though  his  head  was 
among  the  stars,  but  he  stood  in  the  gutter.  In  the  name 
of  religion  he  tried  to  break  the  will  of  Stephen  Girard — to 
destroy  the  greatest  charity  in  all  the  world ;  and  in  the 
name  of  the  same  religion  he  defended  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law.  Hie  purpose  was  the  same  in  both  cases.  He  v/anted 
office.  Yet  he  uttered  a  few  very  great  paragraphs,  rich 
with  thought,  perfectly  expressed. 

Clay  I  never  heard,  but  he  must  have  had  a  commanding 
presence,  a  chivalric  bearing,  an  heroic  voice.  He  cared 
little  for  the  past.  He  was  a  natural  leader,  a  wonderful 
talker — forcible,  persuasive,  convincing.  He  was  not  a 
poet,  not  a  master  of  metaphor,  but  he  was  practical.  He 
kept  in  view  the  end  to  be  accomplished.  He  was  the 
opposite  of  Webster.  Clay  was  the  morning,  Webster  the 
evening.  Clay  had  large  views,  a  wide  horizon.  He  was 
ample,  vigorous,  and  a  little  tyrannical. 

Benton  was  thoroughly  commonplace.  He  never 
uttered  an  inspired  word.  Ho  was  an  intense  egotist.  No 
subject  was   great  enough   to  make  him  forget  himself. 


598  INTERVIEWS. 

Calhoun  was  a  political  Calvinist — narrow,  logical,  dog- 
matic. He  was  not  an  orator.  He  delivered  essays,  not 
orations.  I  think  it  was  in  1851  that  Kossuth  visited  this 
country.  He  was  an  orator.  There  was  no  man,  at  that 
time,  under  our  flag,  who  could  speak  English  as  well  as 
he.  In  the  first  speech  I  read  of  Kossuth's  was  this  line: 
"  Russia  is  the  rock  against  which  the  sigh  for  freedom 
breaks."     In  this  you  see  the  poet,  the  painter,  the  orator. 

S.  S.  Prentiss  was  an  orator,  but,  with  the  recklessness 
of  a  gamester,  he  threw  his  life  av^ay.  He  said  profound 
and  beautiful  things,  but  he  lacked  application.  He  was 
uneven,  disproportioned — saying  ordinary  things  on  great 
occasions,  and  now  and  then,  without  the  slightest  provo- 
cation, uttering  the  sublimest  and  most  beautiful  thoughts. 

In  my  judgment,  Corwin  was  the  greatest  orator  of  them 
all.  He  had  more  arrows  in  his  quiver.  He  had  genius. 
He  was  full  of  humor,  pathos,  wit,  and  logic.  He  was  an 
actor.  His  body  talked.  His  meaning  was  in  his  eyes 
and  lips.  Gov.  O.  P.  Morton  of  Indiana  had  the  greatest 
power  of  statement  of  any  man  I  ever  heard.  All  the 
argument  was  in  his  statement.  The  facts  were  perfectly 
grouped.     The  conclusion  was  a  necessity. 

The  best  political  speech  I  ever  heard  was  made  by 
Gov.  Richard  J.  Oglesby  of  Illinois.  It  had  every  element 
of  greatness — reason,  humor,  wit,  pathos,  imagination,  and 
perfect  naturalness.  That  was  in  the  grand  years,  long  ago. 
Lincoln  had  reason,  wonderful  humor,  and  wit,  but  his 
presence  was  not  good.  His  voice  was  poor,  his  gestures 
awkward — but  his  thoughts  were  profound.  His  speech 
at  Gettysburg  is  one  of  the  masterpieces  of  the  world.  The 
word  "here"  is  used  four  or  five  times  too  often.  Leave 
the  "heres"  out,  and  the  speech  is  perfect. 

Of  course,  I  have  heard  a  great  many  talkers,  but  orators 
are  few  and  far  between.  They  are  produced  by  victorious 
nations — born  in  the  midst  of  great  events,  of  marvelous 


INTERVIEWS.  599 

achievements.  They  utter  the  thoughts,  the  aspirations 
of  their  age.  They  clothe  the  children  of  the  people  in 
the  gorgeous  robes  of  genius.  They  interpret  the  dreams. 
With  the  poets,  they  prophesy.  They  fill  the  future  with 
heroic  forms,  with  lofty  deeds.  They  keep  their  faces 
toward  the  dawn — toward  the  ever-coming  day. — New  York 

Sun,  AprU,  1898. 

JOHN  RUSSELL  YOUNG  AND  EXPANSION. 

QtiesHon.  You  knew  John  Russell  Young,  Colonel? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  knew  him  well  and  we  were  friends  for 
many  years.  He  was  a  wonderfully  intelligent  man — knew 
something  about  everything,  had  read  most  books  worth 
reading.  He  was  one  of  the  truest  friends.  He  had  a 
genius  for  friendship.  He  never  failed  to  do  a  favor  when 
he  could,  and  he  never  forgot  a  favor.  He  had  the  genius 
of  gratitude.  His  mind  was  keen,  smooth,  clear,  and  he 
really  loved  to  think.  I  had  the  greatest  admiration  for  his 
character  and  I  was  shocked  when  I  read  of  his  death.  I 
did  not  know  that  he  had  been  ill.  All  my  heart  goes  out 
to  his  wife — a  lovely  woman,  now  left  alone  with  her  boy. 
After  all,  life  is  a  fearful  thing  at  best.  The  brighter  the 
sunshine  the  deeper  the  shadow. 

Question.  Are  you  in  favor  of  expansion  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  have  always  wanted  more — I  love  to  see 
the  Republic  grow.  I  wanted  the  Sandwich  Islands,  wanted 
Porto  Rico,  and  I  want  Cuba  if  the  Cubans  want  us.  I 
want  the  Philippines  if  the  Filipinos  want  us — I  do  not 
want  to  conquer  and  enslave  those  people.  The  war  on  the 
Filipinos  is  a  great  mistake — a  blunder — almost  a  crime. 

If  the  President  had  declared  his  policy,  then,  if  his 
policy  was  right,  there  was  no  need  of  war.  The  President 
should  have  told  the  Filipinos  just  exactly  what  he 
wanted.  It  is  a  small  business,  after  Dewey  covered  Manila 
Bay  with  glory,  to  murder  a  lot  of  half-armed  savages.     We 


600  INTERVIEWS. 

had  no  right  to  buy,  because  Spain  had  no  right  to  sell  the 
Philippines.  We  acquired  no  rights  on  those  islands  by 
whipping  Spain. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  President  should  have  stated 
his  policy  in  Boston  the  other  day  ? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  think  it  would  be  better  if  he  would  un- 
pack his  little  budget — I  like  McKinley,  but  I  liked  him 
just  as  well  before  he  was  President.  He  is  a  good  man, 
not  because  he  is  President,  but  because  he  is  a  man — you 
know  that  real  honor  must  be  earned — people  cannot  give 
honor — honor  is  not  alms — it  is  wages.  So,  when  a  man  is 
elected  President  the  best  thing  he  can  do  is  to  remain  a 
natural  man.  Yes,  I  wish  McKinley  would  brush  all  his 
advisers  to  one  side  and  saj^  his  say ;  I  believe  his  say 
would  be  right. 

Now,  don't  change  this  interview  and  make  me  say 
something  mean  about  McKinley,  because  I  like  him.  The 
other  day,  in  Chicago,  I  had  an  interview  and  I  wrote  it 
out.  In  that  "interview"  I  said  a  few  things  about  the 
position  of  Senator  Hoar.  I  tried  to  show  that  he  was 
wrong — but  I  took  pains  to  express  my  admiration  for 
Senator  Hoar.  When  the  interview  was  published  I  was 
made  to  say  that  Senator  Hoar  was  a  mud-head.  I  never 
said  or  thought  anything  of  the  kind.  Don't  treat  me  as 
that  Chicago  reporter  did. 

Q-uestion.  What  do  you  think  of  Atkinson's  speech  ? 

Answer.  Well,  .some  of  it  is  good — but  I  never  want  to 
see  the  soldiers  of  the  Republic  whipped.     I  am  always  on 

our  side. — The  Press,  Philadelphia,  February  30, 1899. 


PSYCHICAL  RESEARCH  AND  THE  BIBLE.* 

QtcesHon.  What  is  your  conception  of  true  intellectual 
hospitality  ?  As  Truth  can  brook  no  compromises,  has  it 
not  the  same  limitations  that  surround  social  and  domestic 
hospitality  ? 

Answer.  In  the  republic  of  mind  we  are  all  equals.  Each 
one  is  sceptered  and  crowned.  Each  one  is  the  monarch  of 
his  own  realm.  By  "  intellectual  hospitality  "  I  mean  the 
right  of  every  one  to  think  and  to  express  his  thought.  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  his  thought  is  right  or  wrong. 
If  you  are  intellectually  hospitable  you  will  admit  the  right 
of  every  human  being  to  see  for  himself;  to  hear  with  his 
own  ears,  see  with  his  own  eyes,  and  think  with  his  owi*' 

•As  en  incident  In  the  life  of  any  one  favored  with  the  privilege,  a  visit  to  the  home  of 
Ool.  '^obert  O.  IngeraoU  is  certain  to  be  recalled  as  a  most  pleasant  and  profitable  er- 
perienoe.  Although  not  a  sympathizer  with  the  great  Agnostic's  religious  views,  yet  I 
nave  long  ^.dmired  his  ability,  his  humor,  his  Intellectual  honesty  and  courage.  And  it 
was  ,.'ith  ^ratific.tion  that  I  accepted  the  good  offices  of  a  common  friend  who  recently 
offered  '  >  mtroduc:  me  to  the  Ingersoll  domestic  circle  in  Gramercy  Park.  Here  I  found 
the  genirJ  Colonel,  surrounded  by  his  children,  his  grandchildren,  and  his  amiable  wife, 
whos-^  smiling  greeting  dispelled  formality  and  breathed  "  welcome  "  in  every  syllable. 
The  family  relationship  seemed  absolutely  iJ»Gal— the  very  walls  emitting  an  atmo8phM« 
of  "irt  and  music  of  contentment  and  companionship,  of  mutual  trust,  happineaa  and 
generosity. 

But  my  -hief  desire  was  to  elicit  Colonel  IngersoD's  personal  views  on  questions  related 
to  the  Nev?  Tkought  and  its  attitude  on  matters  o:  which  he  is  known  to  have  very  decid- 
ed opinions.  My  request  for  a  private  chat  was  cordially  granted.  During  the  conversa- 
tion 1.  t  ensued — (the  substance  of  which  is  presented  to  the  readers  of  iJ/r>j<jf  in  the 
following  paragrr.phc,  with  the  Coloners  consent)— I  was  impressed  most  deeply,  not  by 
the  force  of  his  arguments,  but  by  th-  sincerity  of  his  convictions.  Among  some  of  hi 
mor'^  violent  opponents,  who  presumably  lack  other  opportunities  of  becoming  known,  it 
is  the  fashion  to  accuso  Ingersoll  of  having  really  no  belief  in  his  own  opinions.  But,  if 
he  convinced  me  of  little  else,  he  certainly,  without  effort,  satisfied  my  mind  that  this  ac- 
cusation is  a  slander  Utterly  mistaken  in  his  views  he  may  be ;  but  if  so,  his  errors 
are  more  honest  than  many  of  those  he  points  out  in  the  King  James  version  of  the  Bible. 
If  his  pulpit  enemies  could  talk  with  this  man  by  his  own  fireside,  they  would  pay  less  at- 
tention to  Ingersoll  himself  and  more  to  what  he  says.  They  would  consider  his  mean 
ing-^  rather  than  his  motive. 

As  the  Colonel  is  the  most  eonspicuous  denunciator  of  intolerance  and  bigotry  in 
America,  he  has  been  inevitably  the  greatest  victim  of  these  obstacles  to  mental  freedom. 
"  To  answer  Ingersoll "  is  the  pet  ambition  of  many  a  young  clergyman— the  older  ones 
have  either  acquired  prudence  or  are  broad  enough  to  concede  the  utility  of  even  Agnosticd 
in  the  economy  of  evolutioii.  It  was  with  this  very  subject  that  we  began  our  talk— the 
uncharitablenesB  of  men,  otherwise  good,  in  their  treatment  of  '■hose  whose  religious  views 
differ  from  their  own.  (g01> 


6o2  INTERVIEWS. 

brain.  You  will  not  try  to  change  his  thought  by  force,  by 
persecution,  or  by  slander.  You  will  not  threaten  him  with 
punishment — here  or  hereafter.  You  will  give  him  your 
thought,  your  reasons,  your  facts ;  and  there  you  will  stop. 
This  is  intellectual  hospitality.  You  do  not  give  up  what 
you  believe  to  be  the  truth  ;  you  do  not  compromise.  You 
simply  give  him  the  liberty  you  claim  for  yourself.  The 
truth  is  not  affected  by  your  opinion  or  by  his.  Both  may 
be  wrong.  For  many  years  the  church  has  claimed  to  have 
the  "  truth,"  and  has  also  insisted  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  believe  it,  whether  it  is  reasonable  to  him  or 
not.  This  is  bigotry  in  its  basest  form.  Every  man  should 
be  guided  by  his  reason ;  should  be  true  to  himself ;  should 
preserve  the  veracity  of  his  soul.  J:)ach  human  being 
should  judge  for  himself.  The  man  that  believes  that  all 
men  have  this  right  is  intellectually  hospitable. 

Question.  In  the  sharp  distinction  between  theology  and 
religion  that  is  now  recognized  by  many  theologians,  and 
in  the  liberalizing  of  the  church  that  has  marked  the  last 
two  decades,  are  not  most  of  your  contentions  already 
granted  ?  Is  not  the  "  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone  "  an  obso- 
lete issue  ? 

Answer.  There  has  been  in  the  last  few  years  a  great  ad- 
%mnce.  The  orthodox  creeds  have  been  growing  vulgar 
and  cruel.  Civilized  people  are  shocked  at  the  dogma  of 
eternal  pain,  and  the  belief  in  hell  has  mostly  faded  away. 
The  churches  have  not  changed  their  creeds.  They  still 
pretend  to  believe  as  they  always  have — but  they  have 
changed  their  tone.  God  is  now  a  father — a  friend.  He  is 
no  longer  the  monster,  the  savage,  described  in  the  Bible. 
He  has  become  somewhat  civilized.  He  no  longer  claims 
the  right  to  damn  us  because  he  made  us.  But  in  spite  of 
all  the  errors  and  contradictions,  in  spite  of  the  cruelties 
and  absurdities  found  in  the  Scriptures,  the  churches  still 
insist  that  the  Bible  is  inspired.     The  educated  ministers  ad- 


INTERVIEWS.  603 

mit  that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  written  by  Moses ;  that 
the  Psalms  were  not  written  by  David  ;  that  Isaiah  was  the 
work  of  at  least  three ;  that  Daniel  was  not  written  until 
after  the  prophecies  mentioned  in  that  book  had  been  ful- 
filled ;  that  Ecclesiastes  was  not  written  until  the  second 
century  after  Christ ;  that  Solomon's  Song  was  not  written 
by  Solomon  ;  that  the  book  of  Esther  is  of  no  importance  ; 
and  that  no  one  knows,  or  pretends  to  know  who  w^ere  the 
authors  of  Kings,  Samuel,  Chronicles,  or  Job.  And  yet 
these  same  gentlemen  still  cling  to  the  dogma  of  inspira- 
tion! It  is  no  longer  claimed  that  the  Bible  is  true — but 
inspired. 

Question.  Yet  the  sacred  volume,  no  matter  who  wrote  it, 
is  a  mine  of  wealth  to  the  student  and  the  philosopher,  is  it 
not  ?    Would  you  have  us  discard  it  altogether  ? 

Answer.  Inspiration  must  be  abandoned,  and  the  Bible 
must  take  its  place  among  the  books  of  the  world.  It  con- 
tains some  good  passages,  a  little  poetry,  some  good  sense, 
and  some  kindness ;  but  its  philosophy  is  frightful.  In 
fact,  if  the  book  had  never  existed  I  think  it  would  have 
been  far  better  for  mankind.  It  is  not  enough  to  give  up 
the  Bible;  that  is  only  the  beginning.  The  supern/itural 
must  be  given  up.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Nature  has 
no  master ;  that  there  never  has  been  any  interference  from 
without ;  that  man  has  received  no  help  from  heaven ;  and 
that  all  the  prayers  that  have  ever  been  uttered  have  died 
unanswered  in  the  heedless  air.  The  religion  of  the  super- 
natural has  been  a  curse.  We  want  the  religion  of  use- 
fulness. 

Qicestion.  But  have  you  no  use  whatever  for  prayer — even 
in  the  sense  of  aspiration — or  for  faith,  in  the  sense  of  con- 
fidence in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  right  ? 

Answer.  There  is  a  difference  between  wishing,  hoping, 
believing,  and — knowing.  We  can  wish  without  evidence 
or  probability,  and  we  can  wish   for  the  impossible — for 


604  INTERVIEWS. 

what  we  believe  can  never  be.  We  cannot  hope  unless 
there  is  in  the  mind  a  possibility  that  the  thing  hoped  for 
can  happen.  We  can  believe  only  in  accordance  with  evi- 
dence, and  we  know  only  that  which  has  been  demonstrated. 
I  have  no  use  for  prayer ;  but  I  do  a  good  deal  of  wishing 
and  hoping.  I  hope  that  some  time  the  right  will  triumph 
— that  Truth  will  gain  the  victory ;  but  I  have  no  faith  in 
gaining  the  assistance  of  any  god,  or  of  any  supernatural 
power.     I  never  pray. 

Question.  However  fully  materialism,  as  a  philosophy, 
may  accord  with  the  merely  human  reason,  is  it  not  wholly 
antagonistic  to  the  instinctive  faculties  of  the  mind? 

Answer.  Human  reason  is  the  final  arbiter.  Any  system 
that  does  not  commend  itself  to  the  reason  must  fall.  I  do 
not  know  exactly  what  you  mean  by  materialism,  I  do  not 
know  what  matter  is.  I  am  satisfied,  however,  that  without 
matter  there  can  be  no  force,  no  life,  no  thought,  no  reason. 
It  seems  to  me  that  mind  is  a  form  of  force,  and  force  can- 
not exist  apart  from  matter.  If  it  is  said  that  God  created 
the  universe,  then  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  he 
commenced  to  create.  If  at  that  time  there  was  nothing  in 
existence  but  himself,  how  could  he  have  exerted  any 
force  ?  Force  cannot  be  exerted  except  in  opposition  to 
force.  If  God  was  the  only  existence,  force  could  not  have 
been  exerted. 

Question.  But  don't  you  think.  Colonel,  that  the  material- 
istic philosophy,  even  in  the  light  of  your  own  interpreta- 
tion, is  essentially  pessimistic  ? 

Answer.  I  do  not  consider  it  so.  I  believe  that  the  pessi- 
mists and  the  optimists  are  both  right.  This  is  the  worst 
possible  world,  and  this  is  the  best  possible  world — because 
it  is  as  it  must  be.  The  present  is  the  child,  and  the 
necessary  child,  of  all  the  past. 

Question.  W^hat  have  you  to  say  concerning  the  opera< 
tions  of  the  Society  for  Psychical  Research  ?     Do  not  its 


INTERVIEWS.  605 

facts  and  conclusions  prove,  if  not  immortality,  at  least 
the  continuity  of  life  beyond  the  g^ave  ?  Are  the  millions 
of  Spiritualists  deluded  ? 

Answer,  Of  course  I  have  heard  and  read  a  great  deal 
about  the  doings  of  the  Society  ;  so,  I  have  some  knowledge 
as  to  what  is  claimed  by  Spiritualists,  byTheosophists,  and 
by  all  other  believers  in  what  are  called  "  spiritual  mani- 
festations." Thousands  of  wonderful  things  have  been 
established  by  what  is  called  "  evidence  " — the  testimony  of 
good  men  and  women.  I  have  seen  things  done  that  I 
could  not  explain,  both  by  mediums  and  magicians.  I  also 
know  that  it  is  easy  to  deceive  the  senses,  and  that  the  old 
saying  "  that  seeing  is  believing  "  is  subject  to  many  excep- 
tions. I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  there  is,  and  can  be,  no 
force  without  matter ;  that  everything  that  is — all  phenom- 
ena— all  actions  and  thoughts,  all  exhibitions  of  force^ 
have  a  material  basis — that  nothing  exists, — ever  did,  or 
ever  will  exist,  apart  from  matter.  So  I  am  satisfied  that 
no  matter  ever  existed,  or  ever  will,  apart  from  force. 

We  think  with  the  same  force  with  which  we  walk.  For 
every  action  and  for  every  thought,  we  draw  upon  the  store 
of  force  that  we  have  gained  from  air  and  food.  We  create 
no  force ;  we  borrow  it  all.  As  force  cannot  exist  apart 
from  matter,  it  must  be  used  with  matter.  It  travels  only 
on  material  roads.  It  is  impossible  to  convey  a  thought  to 
another  without  the  assistance  of  matter.  No  one  can  con- 
ceive of  the  use  of  one  of  our  senses  without  substance. 
No  one  can  conceive  of  a  thought  in  the  absence  of  the 
senses.  With  these  conclusions  in  my  mind — in  my 
brain — I  have  not  the  slightest  confidence  in  "  spiritual 
manifestations,"  and  do  not  believe  that  any  message  has 
ever  been  received  from  the  dead.  The  testimony  that  I 
have  heard — that  I  have  read — coming  even  from  men  of 
science — has  not  the  slightest  weight  with  me.  I  do  not 
pretend  to  see  beyond  the  grave.     I  do  not  say  that  man  is, 


6o6  INTERVIEWS. 

or  is  not,  immortal.  All  I  say  is  that  there  is  no  evidence 
that  we  live  again,  and  no  demonstration  that  we  do  not. 
It  is  better  ignorantly  to  hope  than  dishonestly  to  affirm. 

Question.  And  what  do  you  think  of  the  modern  develop- 
ment of  metaphysics — as  expressed  outside  of  the  emotional 
and  semi-ecclesiastical  schools?  I  refer  especially  to  the 
power  of  mind  in  the  curing  of  disease — as  demonstrated 
by  scores  of  drugless  healers. 

Answer,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  condition  of  the  mind 
has  some  effect  upon  the  health.  The  blood,  the  heart,  the 
lungs  answer — respond  to — emotion.  There  is  no  mind 
without  body,  and  the  body  is  affected  by  thought — by 
passion,  by  cheerfulness,  by  depression.  Still,  I  have  not 
the  slightest  confidence  in  what  is  called  "  mind  cure."  I 
do  not  believe  that  thought,  or  any  set  of  ideas,  can  cure 
a  cancer,  or  prevent  the  hair  from  falling  out,  or  remove 
a  tumor,  or  even  freckles.  At  the  same  time,  I  admit  that 
cheerfulness  is  good  and  depression  bad.  But  I  have  no 
confidence  in  what  you  call  ''  drugless  healers."  If  the 
stomach  is  sour,  soda  is  better  than  thinking.  If  one  is  in 
great  pain,  opium  will  beat  meditation.  I  am  a  believer 
in  what  you  call  "  drugs,"  and  when  I  am  sick  I  send  for  a 
physician,  I  have  no  confidence  in  the  supernatural. 
Magic  is  not  medicine. 

Question.  One  great  object  of  this  movement,  is  to  make 
religion  scientific — an  aid  to  intellectual  as  well  as  spiritual 
progress.  Is  it  not  thus  to  be  encouraged,  and  destined  to 
succeed — even  though  it  prove  the  reality  and  supremacy 
of  the  spirit  and  the  secondary  importance  of  the  flesh  ? 

Answer.  When  religion  becomes  scientific,  it  ceases  to 
be  religion  and  becomes  science.  Religion  is  not  intel- 
lectual— it  is  emotional.  It  does  not  appeal  to  the  reason. 
The  founder  of  a  religion  has  always  said :  "  Let  him  that 
hath  ears  to  hear,  hear  !  "  No  founder  has  said  :  Let  him 
ihat  hath  brains  to   think,  think !    Besides,  we  need  not 


INTERVIEWS.  607 

trouble  ourselves  about  "  spirit  "  and  "  flesh."  We  know 
that  we  know  of  no  spirit — without  flesh.  We  have  no 
evidence  that  spirit  ever  did  or  ever  will  exist  apart  from 
flesh.  Such  existence  is  absolutely  inconceivable.  If  we 
are  going  to  construct  what  you  call  a  "  religion,"  it  must 
be  founded  on  observed  and  known  facts.  Theories,  to  be 
of  value,  must  be  in  accord  with  all  the  facts  that  are 
known  ;  otherwise  they  are  worthless.  We  need  not  try  ta 
get  back  of  facts  or  behind  the  truth.  The  why  will  for- 
ever elude  us.  You  cannot  move  your  hand  quickly 
enough  to  grasp  your  image  back  of  the  mirror. — Mind,  Ne^ 

York,  March,  1899. 

THIS  CENTURY'S  GLORIES. 

The  laurel  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  on  Darwin's  brow. 
This  century  has  been  the  greatest  of  all.  The  inventions, 
the  discoveries,  the  victories  on  the  fields  of  thought,  the 
advances  in  nearly  every  direction  of  human  effort  are 
without  parallel  in  human  history.  In  only  two  directions 
have  the  achievements  of  this  century  been  excelled.  The 
marbles  of  Greece  have  not  been  equaled.  They  still 
occupy  the  niches  dedicated  to  perfection.  The  sculptors 
of  our  century  stand  before  the  miracles  of  the  Greeks  in 
impotent  wonder.  They  cannot  even  copy.  They  cannot 
give  the  breath  of  life  to  stone  and  make  the  marble  feel 
and  think.  The  plays  of  Shakespeare  have  never  been  ap- 
proached. He  reached  the  summit,  filled  the  horizon.  In 
the  direction  of  the  dramatic,  the  poetic,  the  human  mind, 
in  my  judgment,  in  Shakespeare's  plays  reached  its  limit 
The  field  was  harvested,  all  the  secrets  of  the  heart  were 
told.  The  buds  of  all  hopes  blossomed,  all  seas  were 
crossed  and  all  the  shores  were  touched. 

With  these  two  exceptions,  the  Grecian  marbles  and  the 
Shakespeare  plays,  the  nineteenth  century  has  produced 
more  for  the  benefit  of  man  than  all  the  centuries  of  the 


6o8  INTERVIEWS. 

past.  In  this  century,  in  one  direction,  I  think  the  mind 
has  reached  the  limit.  I  do  not  believe  the  music  of 
Wagner  will  ever  be  excelled.  He  changed  all  passions, 
longings,  memories  and  aspirations  into  tones,  and  with 
subtile  harmonies  wove  tapestries  of  sound,  whereon  were 
pictured  the  past  and  future,  the  history  and  prophecy  of 
the  human  heart.  Of  course  Copernicus,  Galileo,  Newton, 
and  Kepler  laid  the  foundations  of  astronomy.  It  may  be 
that  the  three  laws  of  Kepler  mark  the  highest  point  in 
that  direction  that  the  mind  has  reached. 

In  the  other  centuries  there  is  now  and  then  a  peak,  but 
through  ours  there  runs  a  mountain  range  with  Alp  on 
Alp — the  steamship  that  has  conquered  all  the  seas ;  the 
railway,  with  its  steeds  of  steel  with  breath  of  flame,  covers 
the  land;  the  cables  and  telegraphs,  along  which  lightning 
is  the  carrier  of  thought,  have  made  the  nations  neighbors 
and  brought  the  world  to  every  home ;  the  making  of  paper 
from  wood,  the  printing  presses  that  made  it  possible  to 
give  the  history  of  the  human  race  each  day ;  the  reapers, 
mowers  and  threshers  that  superseded  the  cradles,  scythes 
and  flails ;  the  lighting  of  streets  and  houses  with  gas  and 
incandescent  lamps,  changing  night  into  day  ;  the  invention 
of  matches  that  made  fire  the  companion  of  man  ;  the  pro- 
cess of  making  steel,  discovered  by  Bessemer,  saving  for 
the  world  hundreds  of  millions  a  year;  the  discovery  of 
anaesthetics,  changing  pain  to  happy  dreams  and  making 
surgery  a  science ;  the  spectrum  analysis,  that  told  us  the 
'secrets  of  the  suns ;  the  telephone,  that  transports  speech, 
'uniting  lips  and  ears ;  the  phonograph,  that  holds  in  dots 
and  marks  the  echoes  of  our  words;  the  marvelous  ma- 
chines that  spin  and  weave,  that  manufacture  the  countless 
things  of  use,  the  marvelous  machines,  whose  wheels 
and  levers  seem  to  think ;  the  discoveries  in  chemistry, 
the  wave  theory  of  light,  the  indestructibility  of  mat- 
ter and  force;  the  discovery  of  microbes  and  bacilli,  so  that 


INTERVIEWS.  609 

now  the  plague  can  be  stayed  without  the  assistance  of 
priests. 

The  art  of  photography  became  known,  the  sun  became 
an  artist,  gave  us  the  faces  of  our  friends,  copies  of  tbe 
great  paintings  and  statues,  pictures  of  the  world's  won- 
ders, and  enriched  the  eyes  of  poverty  with  the  spoil  of 
travel,  the  wealth  of  art.  The  cell  theory  was  advanced, 
embryology  was  studied  and  science  entered  the  secret 
house  of  life.  The  biologists,  guided  by  fossil  forms,  fol- 
lowed the  paths  of  life  from  protoplasm  up  to  man.  Then 
came  Darwin  with  the  "Origin  of  Species,"  "  Natural  Selec- 
tion," and  the  "  Survival  of  the  Fittest."  From  his  brain 
there  came  a  flood  of  light.  The  old  theories  grew  foolish 
and  absurd.  The  temple  of  every  science  was  rebuilt. 
That  which  had  been  called  philosophy  became  childish 
superstition.  The  prison  doors  were  opened  and  millions 
of  convicts,  of  unconscious  slaves,  roved  with  joy  over  the 
fenceless  fields  of  freedom.  Darwin  and  Haeckel  and  Hux- 
ley and  their  fellow- workers  filled  the  night  of  ignorance 
with  the  glittering  stars  of  truth.  This  is  Darwin's  cen- 
tury. He  gained  the  greatest  victory,  the  grandest  tri- 
umph.    The  laurel  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  on  his  brow. 

Question.  How  does  the  literature  of  to-day  compare 
with  that  of  the  first  half  of  the  century,  in  your  opinion  ? 

Answer.  There  is  now  no  poet  of  laughter  and  tears,  of 
comedy  and  pathos,  the  equal  of  Hood.  There  is  none 
with  the  subtle  delicacy,  the  aerial  footstep,  the  flame-like 
motion  of  Shelley ;  none  with  the  amplitude,  sweep  and 
passion,  with  the  strength  and  beauty,  the  courage  and 
royal  recklessness  of  Byron.  The  novelists  of  our  day  are 
not  the  equals  of  Dickens.  In  my  judgment,  Dickens  wrote 
the  greatest  of  all  novels.  ''The  Tale  of  Two  Cities"  is 
the  supreme  work  of  fiction.  Its  philosoph}^  is  perfect. 
The  characters  stand  out  like  living  statues.  In  its  pages 
you  find  the  blood  and  flame,  the  ferocity  and  self-sacrifice 


6lO  INTERVIEWS. 

of  the  French  Revolution.  In  the  bosom  of  the  Vengeance 
is  the  heart  of  the  horror.  In  105,  North  Tower,  sits  one 
whom  sorrow  drove  beyond  the  verge,  rescued  from  death 
by  insanity,  and  we  see  the  spirit  of  Dr.  Manette  trem- 
blingly cross  the  great  gulf  that  lies  between  the  night  of 
dreams  and  the  blessed  day,  where  things  are  as  they  seem, 
as  a  tress  of  golden  hair,  while  on  his  hands  and  cheeks 
fall  Lucie's  blessed  tears.  The  story  is  filled  with  lights 
and  shadows,  with  the  tragic  and  grotesque.  While  the 
woman  knits,  while  the  heads  fall,  Jerry  Cruncher  gnaws 
his  rusty  nails  and  his  poor  wife  *'  flops  "  against  his  busi- 
ness, and  prim  Miss  Pross,  who  in  the  desperation  and 
terror  of  love  held  Mme.  Defarge  in  her  arms  and  who  in 
the  flash  and  crash  found  that  her  burden  was  dead,  is 
drawn  by  the  hand  of  a  master.  And  what  shall  I  say  of 
Sydney  Carton  ?  Of  his  last  walk  ?  Of  his  last  ride, 
holding  the  poor  girl  by  the  hand?  Is  there  a  more 
wonderful  character  in  all  the  realm  of  fiction?  Sidney 
Carton,  the  perfect  lover,  going  to  his  death  for  the  love  of 
one  who  loves  another.  To  me  the  three  greatest  novels 
*re  "The  Tale  of  Two  Cities,"  by  Dickens,  "Les  Miser- 
ables,"  by  Hugo  and   'Ariadne,"  by  Ouida. 

"Les  Miserables"  is  full  of  faults  and  perfections.  The 
tragic  is  sometimes  pushed  to  the  grotesque,  but  from  the 
depths  it  brings  the  pearls  of  truth.  A  convict  becomes 
holier  than  the  saint,  a  prostitute  purer  than  the  nun. 
This  book  fills  the  gutter  with  the  glory  of  heaven,  whila 
the  waters  of  the  sewer  reflect  the  stars. 

In  "Ariadne"  you  find  the  aroma  of  all  art.  It  is  a 
classic  dream.  And  there,  too,  5^ou  will  find  the  hot  blood 
of  full  and  ample  life.  Ouida  is  the  greatest  living  writer 
of  fiction.  Some  of  her  books  I  do  not  like.  If  you  wish 
to  know  what  Ouida  really  is,  read  "  Wanda,"  "  The  Dog 
of  Flanders,"  "  The  Leaf  in  a  Storm."  In  these  you  will 
hear  the  beating  of  her  heart. 


INTERVIEWS.  6lX 

Most  of  the  novelists  of  our  time  write  good  stories. 
They  are  ingenious,  the  characters  are  well  drawn,  but 
they  lack  life,  energy.  They  do  not  appear  to  a^ct  for 
themselves,  impelled  by  inner  force.  They  seem  to  be 
pushed  and  pulled.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  poets. 
Tennyson  belongs  to  the  latter  half  of  our  century.  He 
was  undoubtedly  a  great  writer.  He  had  no  flame  or  storm, 
no  tidal  wave,  nothing  volcanic.  He  never  overflowed  the 
banks.  He  wrote  nothing  as  intense,  as  noble  and  pathetic 
as  the  "Prisoner  of  Chillon;"  nothing  as  purely  poetic  as 
"The  Skylark; "  nothing  as  perfect  as  the  "Grecian  Urn," 
and  yet  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  poets.  Viewed  from 
all  sides  he  was  far  greater  than  Shelley,  far  nobler  than 
Keats.  In  a  few  poems  Shelley  reached  almost  the  perfect, 
but  many  are  weak,  feeble,  fragmentary,  almost  meaning- 
less. So  Keats  in  three  poems  reached  a  great  height — in 
"St.  Agnes's  Eve,"  "The  Grecian  Urn  "and  "The  Night- 
ingale " — but  most  of  his  poetry  is  insipid,  without  thought, 
beauty  or  sincerity. 

We  have  had  some  poets  ourselves.  Emerson  wrote 
many  poetic  and  philosophic  lines.  He  never  violated  any 
rule.  He  kept  his  passions  under  control  and  generally 
"kept  off  the  grass."  But  he  uttered  some  great  and  splen- 
did truths  and  sowed  countless  seeds  of  suggestion. 
When  we  remember  that  he  came  of  a  line  of  New  Eng- 
land preachers  we  are  amazed  at  the  breadth,  the  depth  and 
the  freedom  of  his  thought. 

Walt  Whitman  wrote  a  few  great  poems,  elemental, 
natural — poems  that  seem  to  be  a  part  of  nature,  ample  as 
the  sky,  having  the  rhythm  of  the  tides,  the  swing  of  a 
planet. 

Whitcomb  Riley  has  written  poems  of  hearth  and  home^ 
of  love  and  labor  worthy  of  Robert  Burns.  He  is  the 
sweetest,  strongest  singer  in  our  country  and  I  do  not 
know  his  equal  in  any  land. 


6l2  INTERVIEWS. 

But  when  we  compare  the  literature  of  the  first  half  of 
this  century  with  that  of  the  last,  we  are  compelled  to  say 
that  the  last,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  best.  Think  of  the 
volumes  that  science  has  given  to  the  world.  In  the  first 
half  of  this  century,  sermons,  orthodox  sermons,  were  pub- 
lished and  read.  Now  reading  sermons  is  one  of  the  lost 
habits.  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  literature  of  the  latter  half 
of  our  century  is  better  than  the  first.  I  like  the  essays  of 
Prof.  Clifford.  They  are  so  clear,  so  logical  that  they  are 
poetic.  Herbert  Spencer  is  not  simply  instructive,  he  is 
charming.  He  is  full  of  true  imagination.  He  is  not  the 
slave  of  imagination.  Imagination  is  his  servant.  Huxley 
wrote  like  a  trained  swordsman.  His  thrusts  were  never 
parried.  He  had  superb  courage.  He  never  apologized 
for  having  an  opinion.  There  was  never  on  his  soul  the 
stain  of  evasion.  He  was  as  candid  as  the  truth.  Haeckel 
is  a  great  writer  because  he  reveres  a  fact,  and  would  not 
for  his  life  deny  or  misinterpret  one.  He  tells  what  he 
knows  with  the  candor  of  a  child  and  defends  his  conclu- 
sions like  a  scientist,  a  philosopher.  He  stands  next  to 
Darwin. 

Coming  back  to  fiction  and  poetry,  I  have  great  ad- 
miration for  Edgar  Fawcett.  There  is  in  his  poetry 
thought,  beauty  and  philosophy.  He  has  the  courage  of 
his  thought.  He  knows  our  language,  the  energy  of 
verbs,  the  color  of  adjectives.  He  is  in  the  highest  sense 
an  artist. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Hall  Caine's  recent 
efforts  to  bring  about  a  closer  union  between  the  stage  and 
pulpit  ? 

Answer.  Of  course,  I  am  not  certain  as  to  the  inten- 
tions of  Mr.  Caine.  I  saw  **The  Christian,"  and  it  did 
not  seem  to  me  that  the  author  was  trying  to  catch  the 
clergy. 

There  is  certainly  nothing  in  the  play  calculated  to  please 


INTERVIEWS.  613 

the  pulpit.  There  is  a  clergyman  who  is  pious  and  heart- 
less. John  Storm  is  the  only  Christian,  and  he  is  crazy. 
When  Glory  accepts  him  at  last,  you  not  only  feel,  but  you 
know  that  she  has  acted  the  fool.  The  lord  in  the  piece  is 
a  dog,  and  the  real  gentleman  is  the  chap  that  runs  the 
music  hall.  How  the  play  can  please  the  pulpit  I  do  not 
see.  Storm's  whole  career  is  a  failure.  His  followers  turn 
on  him  like  wild  beasts.  His  religion  is  a  divine  and  dia- 
bolical dream.  With  him  murder  is  one  of  the  means  of 
salvation.  Mr.  Caine  has  struck  Christianity  a  stinging 
blow  between  the  eyes.  He  has  put  two  preachers  on  the 
stage,  one  a  heartless  hypocrite  and  the  other  a  madman. 
Certainly  I  am  not  prejudiced  in  favor  of  Christianity,  and 
yet  I  enjoyed  the  play.  If  Mr.  Caine  says  that  he  is  trying 
to  bring  the  stage  and  the  pulpit  together,  then  he  is  a 
humorist,  with  the  humor  of  Rabelais. 

Question.  What  do  recent  exhibitions  in  this  city,  of 
scenes  from  the  life  of  Christ,  indicate  with  regard  to  the 
tendencies  of  modern  art  ? 

Answer.  Nothing.  Some  artists  love  the  sombre,  the 
melancholy,  the  hopeless.  They  enjoy  painting  the  bowed 
form,  the  tear-filled  eyes.  To  them  grief  is  a  festival. 
There  are  people  who  find  pleasure  in  funerals.  They  love 
to  watch  the  mourners.  The  falling  clods  make  music. 
They  love  the  silence,  the  heavy  odors,  the  sorrowful 
hymns  and  the  preacher's  remarks.  The  feelings  of  such 
people  do  not  indicate  the  general  trend  of  the  human 
mind.  Even  a  poor  artist  may  hope  for  success  if  he 
represents  something  in  which  many  millions  are  deeply 
interested,  around  which  their  emotions  cling  like  vines.  A 
man  need  not  be  an  orator  to  make  a  patriotic  speech,  a 
speech  that  flatters  his  audience.  So,  an  artist  need  not  be 
great  in  order  to  satisfy,  if  his  subject  appeals  to  the  prej- 
udice of  those  who  look  at  his  pictures. 

I  have  never  seen  a  good  painting  of  Christ.     All  the 


6l4  INTERVIEWS. 

Christs  that  I  have  seen  lack  strength  and  character.  They 
look  weak  and  despairing.  They  are  all  unhealthy.  They 
have  the  attitude  of  apology,  the  sickly  smile  of  non-resist- 
ance. I  have  never  seen  an  heroic,  serene  and  triumphant 
Christ.  To  tell  the  truth,  I  never  saw  a  great  religious 
picture.  They  lack  sincerity.  All  the  angels  look  almost 
idiotic.  In  their  eyes  is  no  thought,  only  the  innocence  of 
ignorance. 

I  think  that  art  is  leaving  the  celestial,  the  angelic,  and  is 
getting  in  love  with  the  natural,  the  human.  Troyon  put 
more  genius  in  the  representation  of  cattle  than  Angelo  and 
Raphael  did  in  angels.  No  picture  has  been  painted  of 
heaven  that  is  as  beautiful  as  a  landscape  by  Corot.  The. 
aim  of  art  is  to  represent  the  realities,  the  highest  and 
noblest,  the  most  beautiful.  The  Greeks  did  not  try  to 
make  men  like  gods,  but  they  made  gods  like  men.  So  the 
great  artists  of  our  day  go  to  nature. 

Question.  Is  it  not  strange  that,  with  one  exception,  the 
most  notable  operas  written  since  Wagner  are  by  Italian 
composers  instead  of  German  ? 

Answer.  For  many  j^ears  German  musicians  insisted  that 
Wagner  was  not  a  composer.  They  declared  that  he  pro- 
duced only  a  succession  of  discordant  noises.  I  account 
for  this  by  the  fact  that  the  music  of  Wagner  was  not  Ger- 
man. His  countrymen  could  not  understand  it.  They  had 
to  be  educated.  There  was  no  orchestra  in  Germany  that 
could  really  play  "  Tristan  and  Isolde."  Its  eloquence,  its 
pathos,  its  shoreless  passion  was  beyond  them.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  Germany  is  to  produce  another 
Wagner.  Is  England  expected  to  give  us  another  Shake- 
speare ? — The  Sun,  New  York,  March  19,  WW. 


CAPITAL  PUNISHMENT  AND  THE  WHIPPING-POST. 

Question.  What  do  you  think  of  Governor  Roosevelfs 
decision  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  Place  ? 

Answer.  I  think  the  refusal  of  Governor  Roosevelt  to 
commute  the  sentence  of  Mrs.  Place  is  a  disgrace  to  the 
State.  What  a  spectacle  of  man  killing  a  woman — taking 
a  poor,  pallid,  frightened  woman,  strapping  her  to  a  chair 
and  then  arranging  the  apparatus  so  she  can  be  shocked  to 
death.  Many  call  this  a  Christian  country.  A  good  many 
people  who  believe  in  hell  would  naturally  feel  it  their 
duty  to  kill  a  wretched,  insane  woman. 

Society  has  a  right  to  protect  itself,  but  this  can  be  done 
by  imprisonment,  and  it  is  more  humane  to  put  a  criminal 
in  a  cell  than  in  a  grave.  Capital  punishment  degrades 
and  hardens  a  community  and  it  is  a  work  of  savagery.  It  is 
savagery.  Capital  punishment  does  not  prevent  murder,  but 
sets  an  example — an  example  by  the  State — that  is  followed 
by  its  citizens.  The  State  murders  its  enemies  and  the  citizen 
murders  his.  Any  punishment  that  degrades  the  punished, 
must  necessarily  degrade  the  one  inflicting  the  punishment. 
No  punishment  should  be  inflicted  by  a  human  being  that 
could  not  be  inflicted  by  a  gentleman. 

For  instance,  take  the  whipping-post.  Some  people  are 
in  favor  of  flogging  because  they  say  that  some  offences  are 
of  such  a  frightful  nature  that  flogging  is  the  only  punish- 
ment. They  forget  that  the  punishment  must  be  inflicted 
by  somebody,  and  that  somebody  is  a  low  and  contemptible 
cur.  I  understand  that  John  G.  Shortall,  president  of  the 
Humane  Societj^  of  Illinois,  has  had  a  bill  introduced  into 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  for  the  establishment  of  the 
whipping-post. 

The  shadow  of  that  post  would  disgrace  and  darken  the 

(616) 


$l6  INTERVIEWS. 

whole  State.  Nothing  could  be  more  infamous,  and  yet 
this  man  is  president  of  the  Humane  Society.  Now,  the 
question  arises,  what  ishumane  about  this  society  ?  Certainly 
not  its  president.  Undoubtedly  he  is  sincere.  Certainly 
no  man  would  take  that  position  unless  he  was  sincere. 
Nobody  deliberately  pretends  to  be  bad,  but  the  idea  of  his 
being  president  of  the  Humane  Society  is  simply  prepos- 
terous. With  his  idea  about  the  whipping-post  he  might 
join  a  society  of  hyenas  for  the  cultivation  of  ferocity,  for 
certainly  nothing  short  of  that  would  do  justice  to  his  bill. 
I  have  too  much  confidence  in  the  legislators  of  the  State, 
and  maybe  my  confidence  rests  in  the  fact  that  I  do  not 
know  them,  to  think  that  the  passage  of  such  a  bill  is  possi- 
ble. If  it  were  passed  I  think  I  would  be  justified  in  using 
the  language  of  the  old  Marylander,  who  said,  "  I  have 
lived  in  Maryland  fifty  years,  but  I  have  never  counted 
them,  and  my  hope  is,  that  God  won't." 

QtcesHon.  What  did  you  think  of  the  late  Joseph  Medill  ? 

Answer.  I  was  not  very  well  acquainted  with  Mr.  Medill. 
I  had  a  good  many  conversations  with  him,  and  I  was  quite 
familiar  with  his  work.  I  regard  him  as  the  greatest 
editor  of  the  Northwestern  States  and  I  am  not  sure  that 
there  was  a  greater  one  in  the  country.  He  was  one  of  the 
builders  of  the  Republican  party.  He  was  on  the  right 
side  of  the  great  question  of  Liberty.  He  was  a  man  of 
strong  likes  and  I  may  say  dislikes.  He  never  surrendered 
his  personality.  The  atom  called  Joseph  Medill  was  never 
lost  in  the  aggregation  known  as  the  Republican  party.  He 
was  true  to  that  party  when  it  was  true  to  him.  As  a  rule 
he  traveled  a  road  of  his  own  and  he  never  seemed  to  have 
any  doubt  about  where  the  road  led.  I  think  that  he  was 
an  exceedingly  useful  man.  I  think  the  only  true  religion 
is  usefulness.  He  was  a  very  strong  writer,  and  when 
touched  by  friendship  for  a  man,  or  a  cause,  he  occasionally 
wrote  very  great  paragraphs,  and  paragraphs  full  of  force 
and  most  admirably  expressed. — 7'>5!tf  7V*d««^,  Chicago,  Maroii  i9,  i899. 


EXPANSION  AND   TRUSTS.* 

I  am  an  expansionist.  The  country  has  the  land  hunger 
and  expansion  is  popular.     I  want  all  we  can  honestly  get. 

But  I  do  not  want  the  Philippines  unless  the  Filipinos 
want  us,  and  I  feel  exactly  the  same  about  the  Cubans. 

We  paid  twenty  millions  of  dollars  to  Spain  for  the  Phil  - 
ippine  Islands,  and  we  knew  that  Spain  had  no  title  to 
them. 

The  question  with  me  is  not  one  of  trade  or  convenience ; 
it  is  a  question  of  right  or  wrong.  I  think  the  best  patriot 
is  the  man  who  wants  his  country  to  do  right. 

The  Philippines  would  be  a  very  valuable  possession  to 
us,  in  view  of  their  proximity  to  China.  But,  however  de- 
sirable they  may  be,  that  cuts  no  figure.  We  must  do  right. 
We  must  act  nobly  toward  the  Filipinos,  whether  we  get 
the  islands  or  not. 

I  would  like  to  see  peace  between  us  and  the  Filipinos  ; 
peace  honorable  to  both ;  peace  based  on  reason  instead  of 
force. 

If  control  had  been  given  to  Dewey,  if  Miles  had  been 
sent  to  Manila,  I  do  not  believe  that  a  shot  would  have 
been  fired  at  the  Filipinos,  and  that  they  would  have  wel- 
comed.the  American  flag. 

Qicestion,  Although  you  are  not  in  favor  of  taking  the 
Philippines  by  force,  how  do  you  regard  the  administra- 
tion in  its  conduct  of  the  war. 

Answer.  They  have  made  many  mistakes  at  Washington, 
and  they  are  still  making  many.  If  it  has  been  decided  to 
conquer  the  Filipinos,  then  conquer  them  at  once.      Let  the 

•  This  WM  Colonel  IngersolP  s  last  interview.  (617) 


6l8  INTERVIEWS. 

Struggle  not  be  drawn  out  and  the  drops  of  blood  multi- 
plied. The  Republican  party  is  being  weakened  by  inaction 
at  the  Capital.  If  the  war  is  not  ended  shortly,  the  party  in 
power  will  feel  the  evil  effects  at  the  presidential  election. 

Question.  In  what  light  do  you  regard  the  Philippines  as 
an  addition  to  the  territory  of  the  United  States  ? 

Answer.  Probably  in  the  future,  and  possibly  in  the  near 
future,  the  value  of  the  islands  to  this  country  could  hardly 
be  calculated.  The  division  of  China  which  is  bound  to 
come,  will  open  a  market  of  four  hundred  millions  of  people. 
Naturally  a  possession  close  to  the  open  doors  of  the  East 
would  be  of  an  almost  incalculable  value  to  this  country. 

It  might  perhaps  take  a  long  time  to  teach  the  Chinese 
that  they  need  our  products.  But  suppose  that  the  Chinese 
came  to  look  upon  wheat  in  the  same  light  that  other  people 
look  upon  wheat  and  its  product,  bread  ?  What  an  immense 
amount  of  grain  it  would  take  to  feed  four  hundred  million 
aungry  Chinamen! 

Tne  same  would  be  the  case  with  the  rest  of  our  products. 
bo  you  will  perhaps  agree  with  me  in  my  view  of  the  im- 
mense value  of  the  islands  if  they  could  but  be  obtained  by 
honorable  means. 

Question.  If  the  Democratic  party  makes  anti-imperialism 
the  prominent  plank  in  its  platform,  what  effect  will  it  have 
on  the  party's  chance  for  success  ? 

Answer.  Anti-imperialism,  as  the  Democratic  battle-cry, 
would  greatly  weaken  a  party  already  very  weak.  It  is  the 
most  unpopular  issue  of  the  day.  The  people  want  expan- 
sion. The  country  is  infected  with  the  patriotic  enthusiasm. 
The  party  that  tries  to  resist  the  tidal  wave  will  be  swept 
away.     Anybody  who  looks  can  see. 

Let  a  band  at  any  of  the  summer  resorts  or  at  the  suburb- 
an breathing  spots  play  a  patriotic  air.  The  listeners  are 
electrified,  and  they  rise  and  off  go  their  hats  when  "  The 


INTERVIEWS.  O19 

Star-Spangled  Banner"  is  struck  up.  Imperialism  cannot 
be  fought  with  success. 

Question.  Will  the  Democratic  party  have  a  strong  issue 
in  its  anti-trust  cry  ? 

Answer.  In  my  opinion,  both  parties  will  nail  anti-trust 
planks  in  their  platforms.  But  this  talk  is  all  bosh  with 
both  parties.  Neither  one  is  honest  in  its  cry  against  trusts. 
The  one  making  the  more  noise  in  this  direction  may  get 
the  votes  of  some  unthinking  persons,  but  every  one  who 
is  capable  of  reading  and  digesting  what  he  reads,  knows 
full  well  that  the  leaders  of  neither  party  are  sincere  and 
honest  in  their  demonstrations  against  the  trusts. 

Why  should  the  Democratic  party  lay  claim  to  any  anti- 
trust glory  ?  Is  it  not  a  Republican  administration  that  is 
at   present  investigating  the  alleged  evils  of  trusts? — The 

North  American.  FMIadelplua,  June  S2,  1899. 


University  of 
Connecticut 

Libraries 


Austin  Book  Shop 
Bernard  Titowsky 
82-64  Austin  St. 
Kew  Gardens  14,   N.  Y. 
American  History 


i'Tv;'-Hi''f+ii»hM'->ll2' 


kmmm 
4m^ 


:^S:'->i;T 


■mm 


